Gates: "Linux will have Limited Impact" 477
tomas writes ""Addressing an audience of information technology professionals in Houston, Gates said there was clearly a
market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets".
Get the full story and read the full comments. Geez-someone wrap him in asbestos, methinks.
simple applications? (Score:1)
this boy needs to get himself some vitamins (Score:1)
BECAUSE IT ISN'T LIMITED!
that m0r0n.
i bet if you scanned all MS owned domains on the 'net, you'd find at least 50% running non-MS "Free" software.
can't we just institutionalize him and forget MS existed?
Bill is probably right. (Score:1)
Linux power (Score:1)
Good move, but the problem is, that those same IS people, pay your company many dollars for your "simple" wordproccessor and spreadsheet. Up to 40 some percent of MS revenue as a matter of fact. Even _they_ will see through the FUD you're spreading.
Eventually, it is going to get more and more difficult to explain why a company should run NT Server, when Linux is cheaper and faster and more robust.
The fact is people are fed up with your products and your company. The people will choose to go elsewhere. Companies like IBM, Intel, Compaq, Dell and others are fed up with your bullying, they will be glad to sink lost of money and resources into Linux, in answer to your comments.
The sad thing is this: Many, many talented people have put you where you are, and built some amazing software along the way (we know that, and give you that) but... ultimately, you've sold them up the river.
Never forget the AARD code! Microsoft, doesn't deserve the public trust -- as this latest FUD spreading from Mr. Gates shows.
In a way, he's right. - but future children (Score:1)
Change of FUD (Score:1)
Free software written by altruists? (Score:1)
1. People who do it for fun. They don't really care about what happens to the code, or at least they don't feel a need to exercise their god-given right to make money off every byte.
2. People (in commercial environments!) who need to solve a real problem, usually by extending some _existing_ piece of free software, and have no interest in selling their extension, usually because it is in itself worthless.
3. People with an a specific reason (political (FSF), fame, being paid (Redhat's programmers))
Altruists don't code.
Free software (Score:1)
It's an EXTREMELY complicated and powerful image processing tool, some say better than photoshop (the leading commercial software in the field). The people in my company use GIMP when they need to do graphics work.
I can see where your argument comes from, that most people will write commerical software instead of free software. The counter to this argument (and the reason I think programs like GIMP and the Linux kernel exist) is that people can "jump in" (well, maybe not with the kernel
Another counter, and one that I think is relatively new, is that now many companies are writing free software for name recognition. I work for a "big" company, and I am writing free software. Why? Because my company wants name recognition. After all, if people are going to use free software, mise well use our company's right?
Well that's how the managers view it
The Cowardly Lionymous
I *love* this!!!! (Score:1)
Is it just me, or does it really appear that the room is mostly painted, with Bill, Ed "the Mouth" Muth, and Der Fürher Balmer (ever see him at a M$ pep rally? All he needs is that little mustache) continuing to paint the unpainted part, not realizing that the only place unpainted is that little corner that they're having to squeeze into.
Who Is Simon Cooke? (Score:1)
"Simon is English. When I had known him on MSNBC he said he had come to the USA for a job opportunity in DC and that it wasn't working out. He was hoping to get work with Microsoft and perhaps he thought that being the voice of Redmond on the MSNBC/Technology BBS would help. It may have. He now works for MS. But unfortunately he was also right about his current gig not working out. When they learned he had accepted a position with MS which was to start in three months, they fired him at once."
"I am not one of those who is more patient with liars and shysters and disinformation specialists simply because they are polite. It doesn't make sense to me that so many people are. If an axe-murderer says "Excuse me" before delivering a killing blow it does nothing to make his crime less heinous. Still, that brand of online deception is more and more the kind practiced by MS."
source: http://www.pjprimer.com/subscribers/porch.html
Not usually an AC, but sometimes ACdom seems to be warranted. This is one of those times...
He DOES get it... but who cares? (Score:1)
What he wants the public to think, though, and the areas where Microsoft is generally quite wrong, are these:
They think they can provide what "most customers" are looking for. However, the Amiga, Atari, and Macintosh platforms were scoring much higher customer satisfaction than Microsoft when they were in business, and the Mac continues to do so.
They think they are relevant in the world of computer science and business. Truth is, their contributions to the computer world are so few and so irrelevant that if they were to drop off the face of the planet tomorrow, there would be a few sighs and some rearranging, but then people would pick right back up where they left off, just with Apples, Suns, Linux or BSD boxes, et cetera. It's amazing how little Microsoft actually contributes to the world around them, for all their behemoth influence.
They think they can halt Linux and free software's influence on their market dominance. Yes, they may be able to hold the attention of the average joes, and more power to them. Do I care? No; I'm not a very average computer user. I also don't deal with many average computer users, either. And I'm discovering that there are thousands of people like me who find Microsoft increasingly irrelevant to the computer industry, and who simply decide not to give them the attention they desire. Hence the sudden growth of the Linux community.
Bottom line, I guess, is that it doesn't really matter who Bill rails against today, nor tomorrow, nor next week. For the rest of the computer industry, life goes on; for the free software community, we can continue in our bliss, ignorant of what Bill has to say about us, since he can't influence us anyway.
Who cares.. Gates is irrelevant for us. (Score:3)
Don't you get it? There's NO WAY Windows will ever outpower Linux/BSD because it's decisions are based on marketing instead of pure technical issues, making Linux unbeatable.
So please, stop posting stuff about anti-Linux FUD, about misleading Benchmarks etc. Peace Slashdot brothers and sisters!
Linux does have a central testing point (Score:1)
Relatively Simple... (Score:1)
Gates said there was clearly a market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
Uh... Its been a while since I would call Word or Excel "relatively simple" by any stretch of the phrase.
Modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
Guess he hasn't seen mozilla [mozilla.org] in a while. Furthermore, doesn't it seem that most of the "complexity" [read: badly implimented features] in browsers are due to Internet Explorer.
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
Even if I agreed with him on his definition of "windowing systems", doesn't more = better?!
I guess the main thing we can garnish from comments from "The Man" like this one is that they are scared. Very scared. Now more than ever it is time to support GPLed projects for linux. If we can evolve quickly they won't even notice as we stride past them.
Office Apps=simple/free Browser=Complex/Commercial (Score:1)
Again I think this is very odd. We pay hundreds of dollars for these "trivial" applications (such as MS-OFFICE) ... yet they're a piece-of-cake to develop and any joe-blow college student can whip one together in his spare time???
This is quite revolutionary! When are we going to start getting MS-Office for free and have to start paying again for MS-Explorer? Wow, really big news hidden between these lines ... this should be everywhere, spread the news!
Mr. Gates is, again, as bass ackwards as the Mindspring benchmarks that he bought!
simple applications such as word processing.... (Score:1)
I often wish we could go back to the good old days, when the press ignored us and it was exciting to see the word Linux in print.
As for the viability of open source software, history has proven it again and again, and it has also proven that you can say white is black but eventually the people that matter while realize that white is white.
Ignore the borg.
Moving the goalposts - again (Score:3)
In the 80s, they said that free software was OK for simple stuff, but it would never come out with anything "production quality".
Then gcc came out, and it was production quality.
In the early 90s, they said that it would be limited to hacker tools, and nobody would ever make things for real users.
Then gimp, kde, enlightenment, gnome and the rest of them came out, and real users started using them.
Now they say free software will be limited to simple applications, and it'll never be able to make anything with more than a few features.
*yawn*. I'm off to hack Mozilla some more.
ooooh, noooo! (Score:1)
Imagining a cool show along those lines, where the "Mr Bill" clay
doll uncannily bears a bit of resemblance to the Mr Bill in
Redmond... "Mr. Hands" could be a sysadmin, and "Sluggo" could become
a bit more penguin-like... just a thought.
University-type of environment? (Score:1)
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
I guess he means something like Open Source by "university-type of environment." Time will surely tell if you can develop browsers in that kind of environment. I have great hopes for Mozilla, though I haven't seen much yet.
relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
I fail to find a reference, but wasn't there some quote some time ago that said something along the lines of the free software community being unable to develop advanced features. Features like that red line in their on-the-fly spell checker? Now word processors are suddenly simple stuff?
He is right, though, that everything is working with each other in Windows. Well, as long as you do not install too much stuff that was not shipped directly on the Windows CD. But nowadays, you (the average person) do not need much more than what ships with Windows anyway.
--
Windowing systems? (Score:1)
Second, the growing rate might be eight times that of NT, but this means little without context. Consider that the user base of Linux had already grown by 1000% when person number ten downloaded version 0.03 (or whatever).
--
Wow.. (Score:1)
Oh, wait, that's not an alternate universe; it's the future..
"Simple apps" refutation == 1 word. (Score:1)
"BIND"
Err..seems to me an office suite would be more complex than Apache anyway. Sounded like Msr Gates
was pitching NT anyway. Funny about the browsers, I thought, whats left commercial wise IE and Opera? Whoop-dee-doo...
RedHat supplies the q/a (Score:1)
It's rather ironic that the distribution that seems to provide the highest level of quality (in terms of features and stability) is Debian: a completely free distribution put together by volunteers.
RedHat supplies the q/a (Score:1)
You're quite lucky, then. I installed RH 5.1 on two machines. The blasted control-panel/linuxconf system simply does not work. For example, I try to fire up ppp with linuxconf and I get loads of disk activity (probably dumping core).
Configuration is a nightmare for anyone remotely familiar with the "traditional" method of system administration (i.e. editing text files). Because the configuration files are auto-generated with invocations of other scripts (sometimes several layers deep), it's tough to wrap your mind around what is supposed to happen. But perhaps that's just me and I'm not "with it." It wouldn't be the first time. :)
Compiling everything by hand gets old fast, especially on my system [p166/48mb].
No argument there. Debian, IMHO, has a much better package system that Red Hat. apt is the main reason.
BTW: I've tried Debian. In fact, its currently on my secondary system [486/66, 64mb]. However, I still haven't gotten it fully configured the way I like it. Stability, yes, but I still have problems getting it to do what I want it to. Its always fun when dselect decides to skip over half the packages you told it to install.
I've had similar problems with dselect, but I attribute that to my lack of reading on the subject. :) I think it's fair to say that most people agree dselect is not exactly the package interface you want to have. I'm not claiming Debian is the be-all end-all Linux distribution. I said it was the best (always IMHO) in terms of features and stability.
Seriously, the Linux community seems to have split into two groups: people who acknowledge that Red Hat has done a lot of good for the community, and those who constantly throw FUD at Red Hat.
It should not be US fighting each other over who has the better distro. I've yet to use a distro that was significantly better or worse than another.
I am not throwing FUD. The Linux community in general and the Slashdot community in particular (I'm including the *BSD, Be, etc. folks here as well) are going to have to face the fact that their favorite system is not perfect. There are problems, and those problems need to be faced head-on. It does no good to cry "FUD" as a defense against criticism. Call what is FUD FUD. Call what is constructive criticism the road to better software.
I don't recall saying that Red Hat has not done good things. They've done a lot. And I would never criticize them for their status as a successful corporation. But one must not get complacent. We can only pat ourselves on the back for so long.
Bill Forgets History...and is doomed by it! (Score:1)
Then another little package called Lotus 1-2-3 came along, and did much the same for the IBM PC.
SO, spreadsheets are not important...yeah, right.
ttyl
Farrell
640K IS enough! (Score:1)
The only OS I've used that's efficient and tightly written enough to be able to boot and run useful apps, all in 640KB, is DOS. CP/M probably could too.
No, he's not. (Score:1)
If you offered them a version of Win98 that didn't crash, I'm sure they'd take it. What they don't want is an OS that doesn't crash but with the caveat that everything is harder to set up, and even the things that aren't harder are still different, so they have to relearn how to do things that in windows they already knew how to do.
Ummm... (Score:1)
Here's the newest zipfile (about 100kb bigger than v3.5, but still fairly small):
O360E32 EXE 1,307,250 04-02-99 12:13a
Compare *that* to IE or Netscape.
640K IS enough! (Score:1)
Why do we waste time on this? (Off-topic) (Score:1)
Pre-installation is the key (Score:1)
Why do we waste time on this? (Score:2)
ZDnet has an article too ... (Score:1)
Check out the clueless talkback responses for (yet another) another good laugh.
>>>
Clueless? No more so than most of Slashdot, and every bit as rabidly ANTI-Microsoft. Of approximately fifty responses, I think I found one that was _moderately_ sympathetic to MS, the rest bash them as hard as "we" do.
So get a clue yourself before blowing off ZDNet readers. Some of us read more than just Slashdot.
Complicated apps? (Score:1)
Ummmm....the only reason people use Win95 is for the "simple" apps like wordprocessing and spreadsheets.
What are these complicated apps that Win95/NT runs so well? It sure ain't battleships...
Frustrations of right and wrong (Score:1)
There is something that is frustrating about being a Linux user. And that is competing with a company with the resources and commercial power that Microsot has. As a strong Linux supporter (albeit a relative newbie) I see the path of where Linux wants to go and where Linux is. However this is more of a battle of David v. Goliath proportions and the one thing that the Linux community has is belief. Microsoft is a company that has thrived off of a poorly designed operating system due to great marketing and appeasing people's doubts. Linux will persevere in this matter because it is a better product (for lack of better word) and it has the strength of the Computing Community behind it. It is derived from UNIX which has persevered since the late 60's early 70's. Linux may never be the desktop OS, but in this world what matters is that you use a product that you believe in. The best form of marketing is still word of mouth and until Linux can generate enough revenue to support marketing, it is up to us...the few, the proud, the geeks. So do your part in spreading the word. Slashdot is a great place to vent your frustrations, but venting to like minded people accomplishes nothing. I suggest venting out in more public places (for starters MSNBC). If we can't get an above ground audience, then the underground crown will have to make enough noise to be heard by the mainstream. Do your part, spread the word. Have a good day.
Bill is probably right. (Score:1)
read my comment titled "Frustrations of right and wrong" it is just above yours.
Well, what else would you expect Bill to say? (Score:1)
...that Linux is really a great, powerful, versatile, robust and crash-proof OS?
Go back to your lives, people. The show's over.
Urban Legend:640K is RAM is enough! (Score:1)
If fortune is the source, take up the validity of the claim with them. What you're saying is akin to
"I defy you to prove that water is wet, without using the words 'water', 'wet', or using the substance itself."
LK
Good now they can focus are improving there code (Score:1)
Now is spreadsheets and word processors are so simple then M$ must no longer be in that market. Be nice to see free software compete with Office. I'm tired of $300 updates to get more bloated code. Won't be using Office 2000. I'll be using the "simple" KOffice.
It's been attributed to many people (Score:1)
>>I did read Fortune say that it was Bill, but I can't imagine why he would say that - he wasn't involved in PC hardware design at all.
If Bill actually did say it, the reason would be this, the 640K limit was NOT a hardware limitation on machines like the 386, BUT the way M$ designed their first versions of DOS they were only able to handle the 640K that was the limit on early processors. They didn't think ahead because "640K sould be enough for anybody". That is why XMS and EMS were done. 640K + XMS + EMS maintained compatibility with apps that could only run in 640K while giving extra ram for programs whach needed (or could use) more.
640K hasn't been a hardware limitation since before the heyday of the 286. It IS still a M$ limitation to this day.
LK
Ummm... (Score:1)
A browser that fits on a floppy....a guy can dream, can't he? =)
Weird... (Score:1)
Funny, I thought that office apps and games (especially games...) were where Linux had the most trouble competing with Windows...
Give away Office? I don't think so. (Score:1)
The thing is that if Office were freely distributed (like MSIE, not FSF "free"), it would help Windows, at least in the short term. Since most people get PCs with Windows/98 on them, giving them Office encourages them to use it. If someone has to get a different package, they might just end up trying something that doesn't run under windows. This person might then switch to a non-MS OS and that is what would hurt MS. So giving away Office (or at least "Office light") helps encourage the use of Windows by joe sixpack.
But I think that Windows will die on its own anyway, so this would slow things down without stopping the big trend.
IMHO, of course.
- doug
simple applications? (Score:1)
Oh, enough about this. You know why there's a flight simulator in Excel? It's because some of the programmers who worked on the project wanted to sign their name to their work, something the artists of old always got to do. But now that we're corporate cogs, that seems to be taboo. So they sneaked in the simulator, which if you play with it, you'll note has a scrolling list of a lot of people who worked on Excel. I've been involved in a similar sneak to get around PHBs. (My current employer, the CEO being a programmer himself, puts the programmers' names on the product "About" box.)
It's a small act of revolution by some Microsoft programmers, and should be recognized as such, not continually brought up as a golden example of Microsoft wastefulness.
what a moron! (Score:1)
Linux has five Windowing systems? Three weeks ago the Mighty Bill claimed that Linux didn't have a "graphics" interface, whatever that means. Now it has five?
I've been using X -- what are the other four?
TedC
Once again - BG speaks out of both (Score:1)
Sometimes I just can't stand it. Then again. other times I just reach for the beer.
Let the FUD engines roll --- (Score:2)
Whatever happened to John Locke's 'informed public' that is able to 'do the right thing?'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
Simple apps huh (Score:3)
If they are so simple, maby gates should make them open source... Im mean after all, they cant be worth much and it would be a great pr move
Reading between the lines... (Score:1)
Hotmail not run on MS software (Score:1)
Why do we waste time on this? (Score:1)
ROFL! (Score:1)
That quote will go down in history right next to "...640KB is more than enough." :)
Unfortunately (Score:1)
Free software (Score:1)
No, he's not. (Score:1)
or not. the last time my NT workstation crashed was last september when the SCSI controller failed. Since then it's been up running half a dozen servers and heavy interactive use, no problem. YMMV.
Complicated apps? (Score:1)
In a way, he's right. (Score:1)
simple applications? (Score:1)
No, he's not. (Score:1)
But I will never believe you when you say that Linux will capture the "grandma technophobe" market. Yeah, Linux is way more powerful, but setting up one of these powerful applications is a major pain in the ass on my Linux machine. The equivalent Microsoft application is limited, bloated and slow, but it passes the "gee whiz" test when my family looks at my Linux box running Star Office and my wife's Macintosh running MS Office, and chooses Office every time. They don't even care that Office has a large probability of locking up the entire computer and forcing a hard reboot and losing their unsaved data. I have no idea why they don't care, but it's that level of unthinking that we have to deal with if we're going to win on the desktop.
Urban Legend:640K is RAM is enough! (Score:1)
No, he's not. (Score:1)
I don't understand it, myself, and the only explanation I've managed to find is "people are stupid".
simple applications? (Score:1)
Hardware Design (Score:1)
Urban Legend:640K is RAM is enough! (Score:1)
did you ever write code to do that . . . (Score:1)
640K is RAM is enough! (Score:1)
Five different windowing systems? (Score:1)
I know of three "traditional" window systems:
X11, mgr, Berlin
then rhere are `vgalib' and `ggi', but they aren't windowing systems.
Emacs and screen on a console are window system, but not graphical ones.
Of course, he could mean X11 window managers. There are a lot more than five of those.
And then there are the desktops, with CDE, KDE, and Gnome as the most prominent. Including GNUStep makes it 4, and then there are some minor efforts.
Interesting... (Score:1)
Actually, the folks who make Opera still charge for their browser. That does not justify his comment about browsers -- but it does make you wonder if he intends to charge for IE now that he's all but crushed Netscape.
Interesting... (Score:1)
Unless he's referring to CDE, KDE, GNOME...uh, I just ran out...we could throw XFCE in, and some consider Window Maker to be more of an environment than a mere window manager...
There are certainly more window managers than five...
Aren't the 5 "windowing systems" ... (Score:1)
Interesting... (Score:1)
Get a clue.
Whoa, there. (Score:1)
RS-19 hijacking (Score:1)
What callsign will it be transmitting under? And why can't the Mir folk just refuse to launch it?
--N9RUJ
Pre-installation is the key (Score:1)
backstep? (Score:2)
Now we've got the desktop apps and 5 window managers and the FUD is claiming what exactly?
Just Don' Get It (Score:2)
Let's just hope he continues to have this attitude in public as well as privately, so the full guns of the Microsoft Juggernaut are not brought to bear on our asses.
-- adr
Ummm... (Score:1)
Let's take a close look at this, shall we? (Score:5)
Let's take this article apart:
Addressing an audience of information technology professionals in Houston, Gates said there was clearly a market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets.
Like Office 97, which costs more than Windows 98 and is MS's cash cow? It sounds to me like MS thinks that Windows' best applications don't come from Microsoft!
The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
So what's Mozilla, then? It sounds like he's saying that Mozilla doesn't count as a "modern browser". Oh wait, didn't he mean to say "browsing technology"!?!?
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
He's trying to make people think that Open Source software is written only by college students. What a crock.
Gates said Microsoft took Linux seriously but felt that most customers would continue to favor Windows because it was a more homogenous product than Linux, development of which is in the hands of a diffuse band of programmers.
Ha! As if MS's own programmers were any less diffuse. Since when has a corporation's programmers had any direct accountability to the users? Say you find a printing bug in Excel. Can you call the developer who wrote that code at Microsoft and ask him why he screwed up? Of course not! Besides, John Dvorak wrote [zdnet.com] that a lot of ex-MS programmers have said that the build environment for Windows is so confusing that there isn't any one person in charge of it all.
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
And every version of Windows has a different look to it! I wonder how much money those corporations spent on retraining their employees when they switched from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.
``The fact that you don't have a central testing point to control ultimately how to build these things probably means that the impact will be fairly limited,'' Gates said.
Testing!?!?!? Did I just hear Bill Gates tout the testing of Windows 98 as an advantage?!?! If those people really tested their software, would it be as buggy as it is?
``People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,'' he said.
The only time MS tests with other vendor's applications is when they want to find a way to break them.
This has led some industry observers to suggest that the system, originally created by a Finnish college student, could one day challenge the supremacy of Microsoft's Windows.
I don't use Linux since OS/2 is my OS of choice, but I think Linux is already challenging Windows. That sentence should read "could one day defeat the supremacy of Microsoft's Windows."
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Its now in high gear (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see what about to happen. Usually, a company starts spending massive amounts of marketing money when it or a competitor is about to push something through the door.
It still doesn't matter (Score:2)
mp3s, netscape, wordperfect, gcc, nice window managers, endless customizability and stability: it's good enough for me.
There will always be hardware available that linux can run on. it's like winmodems
ziffie.
Why do we waste time on this? (Score:4)
Want to see a real story? Check this out. [perens.com] Big corporation steals, walks all over the law, and when confronted about it shows only contempt for the accusers, mouthing bald-faced lies about what it is doing.
Bruce
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
who cares what he says? (Score:3)
What Gates does or does not say will have Zero impact on this movement. Nothing Gates can say will impact the quality of Open Source code. Nothing Gates can say will stop people who know what they're doing from turning to Linux and Apache for their file server and web server solutions. Nothing Gates can say will stop the growing throng of people who are turning to Linux and Open Source Software.
People who know computers know that Microsoft stuff sucks. Nothing Gates can say can stop that. There are more computers out there than ever before, and the number is growing. There are more people out there using computers. There are increasing numbers of people who understand computers and are experienced with them.
Gates/Microsoft continues to try to keep users from becoming skilled computer users by hiding all the "hard stuff" from them. This is in their best interest, of course, because people who know computers know that Microsoft sucks.
Nothing Gates can say or do can stop this. His company's success in making the computer more prolific is dooming him where it should have created a Microsoft world. You know what their failures are:
1) They make crappy software.
2) They market to the lowest common denominator.
The second anyone tries to do anything with their computer that is outside of M$'s narrow little definition of the "average user" they realize just how horrible and limiting and frustrating MS products can be.
Anyhow...I'll wrap up by repeating myself: it doesn't matter what Gates says. He cannot stop us, so ignore him. Not even the main stream press really takes him seriously anymore...not with everyone in the world launching a lawsuit against 'em.
- dria
University-type environment... (Score:2)
Yah! I smiled at this one. Doesn't Microsoft pride itself on the casual "campus" environment up in Redmond?
I also found it hilarious that Linux is only good for word processing and spreadsheets. According to the what I read in the trade press, Microsoft's revenues would be significantly lower without MS Office9x. I doubt that Visual BASIC is what's paying for Bill Gates' new house.
Simple apps huh (Score:2)
The long term plan for Office is to turn it into the front end for a client-server document management/groupware/web publishing system. Microsoft has found out that the network is the profit center and may be ready to ceed the 'simple' word proc and spreadsheet market.
--
Interesting (Score:2)
He's got it backwords (Score:2)
Further more I'm convinced that in the future (say 10 to 20 years) money in software will only be made on HIGH priced, but small market products. Things where the user base isn't big enough to support a good OSS project. Or in very limited time projects (Tax software, with a 3 month window of usefullness).
Windowing systems? (Score:3)
5 windowing systems? Last I saw, there was only one windowing system on Linux and that's X11 ( Berlin doesn't seem to be going anywhere in the near future ). There's a dozen or so window managers, but I haven't met an app yet that cared much about the window manager. Some of the desktop environments might be a different matter, but even there it looks like apps are going to be relatively independent of the desktop. Worst case seems to be that you lose things like drag-and-drop between apps if you aren't running a desktop that supports the right protocol.
Bill, get a clue: Linux isn't Windows and we don't have to live with a tightly-bound mess like the one you created. So we have multiple window managers, so what? They all talk ICCCM and similar standard protocols at this point, so from the app's POV it's irrelevant which one is running.
And if Linux is only going to have limited impact, why's it growing 8 times as fast as NT?
It doesn't matter (Score:3)
It doesn't matter what Microsoft attempts to do to Linux. Linux is not just some corporate entity, burdened with the rules enforced by some CIO. Linux has existed for years without any corporate recognition or support. Although Linux does have support now, it could be taken away and Linux would still live.
Linux doesn't play by Microsoft's rules, and it never has. Let MS bring out the full guns, they can't destroy Linux
Too Complex to be Free? (Score:2)
I think web browsers provide possibly the best illustration of how wrong he is. Yes, they started off free and open source, and then a couple people decided to try to make money off of it and they went commercial. But now look at the state of things. IE is being given away and Netscape has gone open source. It is worth noting that the open source version of netscape appears to be vastly superior to the old version upon initial impressions. So this doesn't hold true at all.
Linux vs. Microsoft is another good example of how wrong this notion is. Certainly an OS is one of the more complicated things somebody can develop and yet Linux is far superior in every way to Windows NT where it even attempts to compete. Linux may lack in the GUI department but that's because the GUI is a completely seperate project (which by all rights it should be). Without a GUI, the ease of use issue is somewhat hard to compare, but I've generally found Unix much easier to deal with than DOS.
Ironically the things that Bill indicated as being simple (word processing, spread sheets), are the things that he makes the most money on.
---
Let the FUD engines roll --- (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:2)
KDE, Gnome, Afterstep, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, FVWM, FVWM95? Oh wait, that's MORE than five!!! But I think his point was we're all slack-jawed mouth breathers, and choices confuse us. He is so right. That's why I have the LiteStep shell replacement on my Win95 (gag) machine at work.
What exactly is a "university-type environment"?
One that supports the open exchange of ideas, I guess. Can't have that. Problems might get solved that way. Then how do we charge for support and fixes, if everything runs right?
Oh, and who is charging for their browser now?
Opera and, according to some, Microsoft. Though M$ doesn't do it directly. Because they're so complicated they have to be sold, apparently. My IE browser at home was so complicated I removed it, and now I have 98lite (used only for Quake2, thanks to nVidia). Much less complicated. Much faster, too.
I also find it interesting (as did AC) that now Linux, the mega-hit per day server, the firewall, the router, the mailserver, the Beowulf cluster monster, my desktop at home, blah blah blah is really only a very simple product, because it is free. I'll have to remember that tomorrow when something hangs on my machine here at work and takes all of Win95 with it. I, as a consumer, asked for that level of integration, of course. It's not instability, it's innovation.
FUUUUUDFUDFUDFUDFUDFUDFUD!!!
Good thing this is all such blatant bullshite only the pointiest of PHBs will buy it.
--
University-type environment... (Score:2)
What I want to know is, if word processors and spreadsheets are simple, why do some of them require 100+ MB and cost umpteen bajillion dollars?
--
SOP: Marginallize the competition. (Score:3)
"Who them? They don't worry us here at MS."
Another way of stating this is: Marginallize it until we do it.
It's part of the "never let 'em see you sweat" school of thought.
Many of the early RDBMSes didn't do record level locking. When pressed, they'd say users didn't really need the feature [marginallize it]. Then they'd implement it, and charge extra for it [until we do it].
I once had the please of listeneing to an Oracle sales/marketing type discuss the archetecture of their Release 1.0 Oracle Web Server.
"Release 1 is a single process architecture, because that's more performant [sic].
Release 2 will be a multiprocess architecture, because that's more performant [sic]."
Remember: Marginallize it until we do it.
Just Don' Get It (Score:2)
And, if you think this doesn't affect us, that is where we could all sadly be mistaken. It's the slow migration and discovery of Linux by those 95% that is getting the money to start backing Linux. That is what allows mainstream, polished distributions, major hardware vendor backing, and more and more applictions written for linux. If that flow of people toward linux, even as a secondary OS, then the support will fade away, becuase believe what we want people, but the software, hardware and distribution backing really comes from money, and money is from market.
Comments like this are not for those who have discovered Linux, but those who are just starting to hear about it. And the last thing we need for them to hear is Big Bill telling them it's going to be nothing more then the next Pet Rock or Rubiks Cube: nothing more then a passing fad.
Gee, tought it was other way around? (Score:2)
Oh, wait, I forgot. The browser is now so complicated that it is indistinguishable [sp?] from the operating system and therefore we have to pay for it as part of the OS? Sheesh! (man I love that little 'go' button on IE5
Interesting Bill...but... (Score:3)
Does the population of computer users who truly excel in the field prefer Linux or Windows?
How quickly is that population growing?
(I should be a reporter)
Gates on Linux (Score:2)
Anyway what does Bill Gates know about software and QC? He had to buy DOS. He is a darn good CEO. He shouldn't don the image of Tech guru. Let someone at MS Research do that.
Loser friendly... (Score:2)
Why are we so quick to ridicule the uninitiated for the unpardonable sin of daring to try and enter our sanctums? After all, was it so darned easy for _us_ to learn?
The fact is this: Linux has important advantages over Microsoft in all areas _except_ PUBLIC RELATIONS. Just as the Linux development community is collectively responsible for the code, the Linux user community is collectively responsible for the public perception of this OS, and we have not been doing our job. As Linux users we have a responsibility to be more polite, more civilized, better spoken, and, most of all, more helpful than the unwashed baboon hordes of Microsoft. If we lose the battle for public perception, we lose. Period.
There seems to be an attitude prevalent in the community that there is nothing which can be done about M$'s FUD. FUD only works because it contains a grain of truth. Those the media mistakenly calls "hackers" are a noisy, unruly, rude, loutish bunch. Linux is more difficult for a new user to learn how to deal with than MS Windows. But those facts are _our_ fault. The annoying kids populating IRC are our fault. We haven't done anything about it. Where are responsible channel operators who are willing to kick someone for being rude? After all, we're talking about #linux, not #teenchat, and the free speech of adolescent boys is _not_ a big concern of mine. Linux is harder for a newbie to pick up on because we haven't made a concerted efford to make it otherwise. Where is the network of volunteers contributing their time to help people who've just gotten the word?
That's really all I have to say. We can criticize Gates for this all we want, but all he's really doing is being clever and hitting us where we're weakest--PR. As with everything about an open OS, it is up to us to change that.
Ummm... (Score:2)
"The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers
were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of
environment,'' he said."
I got Netscape 4.5 and IE 5.0 for free. Since when has _anyone_ charged for a browser???
The poor boy is obviously delusional. Somebody give him a smart pill, please!