The Competition for Developers 212
Ray Cromwell writes "Software competition a concern is a major concern, according to Steve Ballmer.
Amongst other things, Steve says
that the growing amount of development done for the Linux operating system by the work of volunteers developers worldwide is "scary."
Ballmer also characterized the free-form Linux community as "somewhat crazy," but said Microsoft now has "a real server competitor."
"
quick question.. (Score:1)
ballmer, case, jobs, wozniak.. i count at least four.
i think there's some kind of conspiracy here.
[/score: 0, flamebait]
Re:day++,dollar++; (Score:1)
and say 'they have a real competitor' now, is
because they want one. if they don't have one
the DOJ is going to rake them over the coals.
isn't it obvious how bad they want us/Linux to
be competitors? maybe i'm just nuts, but that
is the way i see it.
Re:Be serious (Score:1)
"We're very excited about this," Linus Torvalds was quoted as saying. "We firmly believe that this may very well be the most advanced operating system ever designed for the personal computer."
Industry analysts predict that Linux 2000 will clobber any hope Redmond WA software giant Microsoft ever had of winning the software war.
"This is what everyone has been waiting for. Linux is finally ready to tackle the most advanced tasks anyone could ever possibly imagine. It is bug free and will seemlessly integrate into embeded systems such as the central computer on the USS Enterprise."
C'mon man. Admit.. admit. This DOES sound like MS, it DOESN't sound a bit like the Linux community. We may go on and on about how superior to Windows Linux is, but that's just because it IS superior. (no arrogance there.
Working for Free (Score:1)
People responded with stuff like "programmers will still have to write internal apps...thats what most apps are anyways, etc, etc..."
I thought it important to once again direct everyones attention to the fact that this movement is about Free as freedom not free beer. This doesn't mean that the applications have to be distributed for free. It just means that either the source code is distributed for free and with no ristrictions or i can obtain the source code with minimal hassel(ie download it). Remember the majority of consumers aren't going to care about having the source to Word. But if someone thought they could take the source to Word and make a better product and support it and market it, then they may very well do so. It forces the entire industry to innovate. If a company like microsoft gets stagnant (releasing the same crap over and over with minimal modifications and calling win2k) then another company grabs the source, fixes it/introduces new and fresh innovation and releases a *real* product.
To me this isn't about "can i download the source to Word compile it nad have a free word processor." Indeed, if a company and its developers put in the effort to create a decent product they should be compensated for their service. Its about avoiding industry stagnation. Its about innovation. Its about the source wanting to be *Free*.
Re:One thing he slipped in... (Score:1)
ummm, wow! I can't believe some of the opinions expressed by the geeks on
It's ALL about the software baby. The reason millions of people get on the net today is NOT that they can download at 53k. It's because they can buy a machine, turn in on, and point & click with AOL/IE/netscape whatever.... instead of typing crap on a command line, firing up their ftp client (with more text commands), and then maybe launching telnet and going to a MUD.
Read "The Dumbing-down of programming" article (Score:1)
What you fail to realize is the price you pay for happily being fed the microsoft version of "these aren't the droids you're looking for". You want to talk development cost? Tell me about the development cost when bugs crop up and your only response is "gee, I just did what the wizard told me to do". There is an advantage to re-implementing the wheel: you implemented it, you can fix it. Open Source however, is the next best thing.
To put it another way, anything worth doing is worth doing right; most importantly when it comes to software. Microsofts MSDN-style development culture is a snake-oil salesman that convinces you to trust it and treats the symptoms of your ills SO WELL you forget that the CAUSE is still there. This is NOT "doing it right". Anyone who wakes up in a cold sweat at night over Y2k should take a look at the way the "Rapid Application Development" concept is bought, sold, and out there running goods and services.
Re:Interesting Microsoft world view... (Score:1)
Already happened. Check out the April 1999 issue of Windows NT Magazine.
I know it isn't a white paper, but all these Windows _x_ Magazine publications are stools for Microsoft.
MOTD (Score:1)
(Bill Gates, a couple of years ago)
--
Use DELPHI instead. (Score:1)
And when I did, man, I was flabbergasted.
Programming for Windows was actually *FUN*, courtesy of Borland's excellent VCL.
If you've gotta write for Windows, use Delphi. There's not much you can do in VC++ that you can't do in Delphi, and Delphi is a hell of a lot cosier.
At times, it feels almost as fun as it does to write apps for BeOS...
Re:FUDmasters of the universe. (Score:1)
Like 90%+ of programmers do now... (Score:1)
--
Re:sigh... (what did you say about Canada?) (Score:1)
South Park reference. Haven't you seen it yet?
--
Yes, he's saying it because of the court case, but (Score:3)
Despite the fact that this is largely a bogus argument in the here and now (that Microsoft is not a monopoly because of this *potential* threat), over the long term, I think this is Microsoft's greatest fear, and constitutes a threat that is very, very real.
I think this article indicates that it is currently "top of mind" at Microsoft.
I don't know how they are going to keep developers away from Linux/BSD/etc., but they sure as hell are going to try.
--
Interesting Microsoft world view... (Score:5)
It's funny that Microsoft wants us to believe that Linux and NT are the only real competitors in the server market. They're trying to defeat IBM, HP, and Sun (their real competitors in the high-end market) by excluding them from the contest.
The next step is to publish white papers like "Linux or Windows 2000, which is better for your enterprise?". Lets face it, neither Windows nor Linux is ready for seriously massive enterprise deployment today. But if MS can make it seem like these are the only choices they might take market share away from the companies that really have viable products.
I used to develop for Windows and heres why I left (Score:3)
subscribed. Linux API docs and source are free.
2. Visual C++ subscriptions costs $250 last time
I bought it (circa 1996). Linux dev tools are free.
3. Microsoft constantly assures developers that their
new XYZ API is the way of the future "Port all
your code to XYZ now before it's too late!"
then a few months later they either abandon
XYZ or change the rules of it completely. How
long do you expect me to tolerate that?
4. Microsoft constantly competes with it's own
3rd party developers and beats them senseless.
5. With the Open Source paradigm it's not about
selling software anymore -- it's about *using*
the tools available to build entire systems
and content. If you you reach the limits of the
software then open your code editor and dig in.
6. Geeks are leaving Windows because it's not
interesting anymore. Linux, BSD, Apache, Perl,
GNOME, KDE, GIMP, etc.. those things are
interesting. News things are happening everyday
in those areas and people are contributing code
because it's useful, interesting, challenging,
and other programmers are actually listening
to their suggestions rather than letting a group
of marketing droid design the software using
zombie focus group of morons.
Re:Does anyone else - yep (Score:1)
Re:Silicon Man (Score:1)
What are you talking about? What difference? Code size? Executable size? Speed? Please explain your claims. Simply making sweeping generalizations isn't helping anyone. ;)
Java also runs under Windows in case you hadn't noticed.
FUD is still FUD when it comes from our camp. Don't be a FUDdy duddy, buddy.
Re:If Microsoft had any sense... (Score:1)
The enterprise editions are priced somewhat high, but you can get around this with an MSDN subscription (doesn't save you money, but gets you just about every Microsoft product made along with access to betas).
What are you paying for? Guaranteed documentation and support. Media. Stable libraries. Bill's new house. The list goes on.
Why do I pay? Because I like Visual C++. I like MFC. They have their bad points (just like anything else) but it's a great development enviornment for getting things running up and running quickly and smoothly.
Would I rather develop on Linux? You bet. And I do, for fun. But just because Linux is experiencing phenomenal growth and press coverage does not mean that Window is going away anytime soon. There are plenty of jobs for Windows programmers, very few Linux/Unix.
Re:Why I will NOT develop under Windows. (Score:1)
It does not, and never has. Open a new project (blank) and add some files (cpp/c/h). 50% of the application I've developed in VC++ (console and windowed) have started their sad little lives this way.
I hate posting these message. I don't like Microsoft. I'm much happier at my bash prompt. FUD flies both ways however, and if there's one thing we should stamp out it's FUD.
Oh, and teletubbies. Two things we should stamp out.
Re:Well...kinda (Score:2)
More FUD! MFC is not a neccessity to write a Windows application, and it actually limits you quite a bit if you want to do anything out-of-the-box (overrides are a pain in the arse). It's no more difficult to write a nonMFC application than it is to write a GTK application. If you can't figure either of these out, you need a) more practice, or b) Visual Basic or Glade.
Not only is this lame, but who knows how many bugs are in that AppWizard code? Knowing MS, probably tons. If I'm on a development team, the last thing I want is to track down bugs in M$ code :)
That's funny (really!) but also untrue. The AppWizards give you a skeleton application - there isn't much room for error. I've never found one in appwizard generated code, and I've never heard of anyone else finding one. All my errors are mine! Mine alone I say!
Re:All Statements from M$ will use the term Server (Score:1)
Then again, Windows isn't exactly intuitive either even with the contextual clues you get from the GUI. But the worst thing is, if you can't do something from the GUI you probably can't do it at all - you don't even have the option to drop into a CLI to do what you want (you can drop into DOS, but it most likely won't help).
So maybe Linux would make just as good of a desktop as Windows for Newbies. It's already blatantly more stable and less expensive than Windows - I guess it would feel more right recommending it as a desktop if it were obviously more intuitive to use than Windows.
a massive stable, huh? (Score:2)
Kick down the stable door and run free with Linux!
No beaurocracy (Score:1)
his motive? (Score:1)
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
NT 4 is THE *crash* thing? (Score:1)
There's nothing like a fresh start to get you all motivated - it's almost like a baptism! Windows emerging from the blue waters to a nice new start!
If crashes don't really pump your nads, then Linux or BSD is the one for you!
If Microsoft had any sense... (Score:1)
Then again, Microsoft does love it's cash cows!
Pity, when Linux has eaten all the grass, their cows will starve to death
Re:Have you ever bought a UNIX compiler? (Score:1)
We're not talking about UNIX, we're talking about Linux!
The tools provided for the UNIX platform are vastly superiour to that MFC shite we all *love*
Re:Developer attraction (Score:1)
A Class Library can always be duplicated (aka the whole QT thing) so that it may be possible in the future to recompile your windows application under linux by using a API compatible FreeMFC.
Ex-Nt-User
I quit my last job because of the changing API (Score:2)
It even got so bad that at one point I heard a Microsoft developer say, "the source code is the documentation." What kind of bullshit is that?
Now I work on BIOS's, which are OS independent, for the most part. And at home I work on OS/2, which has an API that hasn't changed in 10 years (and still works great!)
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Hope the DOJ sees past this pap (Score:1)
Mr. Ballmer's comments are aimed squarely at the DOJ. Unfortunately, this ploy will probably work to some degree.
OSS is the sand which will eventually erode the mountain that is microsoft to nothing. Redmond can do little but look majestic during this blast of a thousand programers.
Re:Try patents and lawsuits agaisnt free developer (Score:1)
Developer attraction (Score:2)
Microsoft certainly has a legitimate concern when it comes to attracting developers. Let's take a common scenario: your average Genius Hacker gets a brilliant idea for an application/utility/tool that no one else has written yet.
Assuming he can scrape together the money to get himself a good Windows development environment (a few boxes running both 95 and NT, various Microsoft developer products - Visual C++, etc) he then has to face:
- working on a platform with a somewhat obtuse API and dealing with it's inconsistencies. At the same time he can make his job MUCH easier by using Microsoft's wonderful classes, thereby tying his soul forever a Windows platform.
- but because he's developing on Windows he'll immediately have access to millions of PC users, right? Well, in actuality no. The costs for getting "certified" to run under Windows and getting a PC distributor to give him a chance are pretty slim.
- and most importantly, once the product is developed he needs to stave off Microsoft from developing a competing product. Microsoft has gone from sucking up companies to taking "embracing and extending" to an all new level. Let's take this weeks headlines - Microsoft Messenger not only supports ICQ and AIM, but Microsoft's own messaging protocol. What a shocker! While it was once viable to start a company with the hopes of being bought out by MS, now they can play 500 lb gorilla and simply overwhelm the distribution channels any small developer could hope to use.
Compare that to developing on Linux:
- free development environment
- you no longer have to "hack" your program to accept the OS's limitations - you can actually contact other developers with patches to make their code work properly
- multiple toolkits are available - including those that also support Windows
- friendly distribution channels
Unfortunately you won't be able to take as many coffee breaks when coding - the OS won't crash during compiling/debugging.
Re:What a jerk Ballmer (and pretty much ... (Score:1)
Re:quick question.. (Score:1)
But it's Cyberdyne, and SKYNET...
Re:Reality Check (Score:1)
I'm afraid I'm guilty of unintentionally damning with faint praise... GTK is actually my favorite toolkit of the two, but I didn't want to deviate from the Win32 versus Linux+X11 discussion into a GTK advocacy discussion. I don't think it worked out to well.
1) it has to do dynamic type checking, rather than static type checking.
In the C binding. That's not an issue in the C++ binding.
2) writing your own widget tends to be a little involved.
Enh... I dunno. Not more than it has to be. I do a good deal of OO programming in C (unrelated to GTK), and I would have to say that that's just a result of having to do so much more of the OO stuff explicitly in C.
3) the code tends to be wordy.
WRT the C binding, yes. The wordiness is half the "evil" of it that I referred to. The C++ binding isn't bad at all.
GTK is actually my toolkit of choice, although I do like Qt's design better in some areas (not the ones I criticized).
---
Reality Check (Score:2)
> Linux. "
> Mostly frontends to "whois" etc...
Check freshmeat; wrappers for existing commandline software are a minority. 80-90% of GTK apps are "original" in design and often functionality. (you'll see similar numbers for Qt; I'm not making comparisons with other widget sets)
> By the way, you shouldn't compare Win32 API to
> Xlib - those are on completely different
> levels. It is more like Win32 API = GTK
That's not actually an appropriate comparison either; GTK (or Qt for that matter) covers a very small subset of the functionality of the Win32 API (the remaining functionality is supplied by the POSIX stuff).
> And I agree with previous poster - GTK is ugly
> and simply not pleasant to program in or use (
> hint ; try QT and you will see the truth
Qt's a nice piece of work, as far as C++ APIs go. GTK's C++ binding is _decent_ -- although it's not quite as good (or at least as complete) in some areas.
From the perspective of a C++ programmer, GTK's C binding is quite evil, but the problem is precisely that it IS C. There really isn't a better way to do that kind of OO thing in C -- Qt's C binding (yes, there is one), for instance, does not take anywhere near as good an advantage of inheritance and other OO constructs.
I guess one advantage of GTK over Qt, at least in C++, is that you can program GTK in standard C++. You can't (in most cases) with Qt; some of Qt's functionality necessitates its own special C++ variant, requiring a special preprocessor. On a practical basis, that's not that big a deal, but I do prefer to stick with accepted language standards.
These issues aside, Qt is better than GTK, yes. Just be aware of the caveats.
---
Re:I thought NT 4 was THE thing? (Score:1)
The problem with your weak comparison is that there is no marketing machine behind Linux, telling half-truths and making vague promises. Yes, there are a number of misguided zealots pushing Linux when- and wherever they can, but they don't reflect the community as a whole, much less the kernel developers.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make it sensible. Besides, no-one (not anyone with half a clue, anyhow) ever claimed that the 2.0.x series was be-all end-all the best thing to ever grace your machine...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Re:Developer attraction (Score:1)
Re:Hope the DOJ sees past this pap (Score:1)
Compare this to Microsoft. They are their own distributor, so between their material cost and manufacture cost their profit margin is much MUCH higher.
nothing new (Score:1)
Re:Yes, he's saying it because of the court case, (Score:1)
Re:Developer attraction (Score:1)
(oh, and to prevent this posting from being considered "redundant" in the ./ sense: Linux is cool! Linux is great! Windows sucks!).
LMAO (Score:1)
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners...
I wish I was a moderater right now. I'd +1 this just for the sig.
----------------------
Re:MOTD (Score:1)
(ibid.)
----------------------
server competitor (Score:1)
BECAUSE (Score:1)
or will they hold out for an opportunity to create something really great?
Chuck
Re:M$ don't get the brains anymore. (Score:1)
I'll develop for Linux any time.
******************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
Billions of Microsoft developers, etc. (Score:3)
What software is on it?
I'll tell you what software is on mine.
Microsoft FoxPro, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access. Do you see a pattern here?
At least with Linux or Be, third-party developers have a fighting chance. In the last couple of years, Windows has changed from an open platform to one that's proprietary in all but name. Third-party applications? Bah! Who even uses them anymore?
Microsoft is bound to lose developer mindshare in this type of situation. After all, 0% of 100,000,000 computers is still, well, zero.
D
----
Why I will NOT develop under Windows. (Score:2)
Occasionally I do engage in billbashing, of course, but I'm not really much into Linux versus Windows/NT thingy. Still, I can't resist flaming here.
Fortunately, my consulting work involves mostly UNIX development. From now on, I've made a decision that I will NOT accept any more consulting assignments that involve any kind of development in Windows platform. Not Visual C++, not Visual Basic, nada. I've done both in the past, but not any more. Basically, right now there's one fewer Windows developer out there, but I bet that I'm not the only one who've made the same decision. Here's why.
Basically, I just can't tolerate it anymore, that's all. Windows-based development is so technologically crippled that I feel like I need to have my IQ artificially reduced by a few digits before I start coding.
Visual C++ is the only C++-based environment that I know of that actually *requires* a bloody WIZARD to develop. Souls who are cursed with having to use VC++ know what I'm talking about.
The damn thing is so silly, I have to laugh at it. So much absolute GLOP has to go into a VC++ program just to support the patently idiotic Windows API that even the smallest applications come out of the gate already bloated beyond all recognition.
And I won't get into the fact that even the most simple Windows-based applications have to be written using an event-driven model. That is so downright stupid that I can't even find the words to describe it.
I'VE HAD IT! Bye, Windows. I won't even miss you.
--
Re:day++,dollar++; (Score:1)
Re:his motive? (Score:2)
Well, I agree with you there. They wrote up a big whitepaper and posted it on their NT Server site [microsoft.com] saying the usual stuff. Yada, yada, It's free, there's no "insurance" if it fails, you can't pay anyone to hold your hand, it was written by a bunch of bum who just have to much time on their hands, it'll make hair grow out of your nose, it'll date your girl friend, it'll send nasty e-mails to your dog. Now Steve Ballmer decides, "Whoa, This is a really good product. Omigod! It's actually a legitimate competitor to NT" What next? A recanting of the whitepaper? Is Steve Ballmer becoming senile. Is it time for Microsoft to give him a few million and tell him to enjoy life?
This reminds me of when Paul Maritz said, under oath [microsoft.com] that Abi Source was developing a very high-quality word processor [abisource.com]. But do you think that's what they are going to be telling consumers? Tommorrow, they'll have another "bogus" Mindcraft test, just to make sure that everyone who is "important" understands what they *really* think of competition.
Sure, they can fool financial analysts, and they *think* they can fool Judges. They can even coerce OEM's to only preload their OS. They can deceptively market to consumer who "trusts" them. But they can only do it for so long.
Because, you can't lie forever. Eventually, you make that one wrong move. Microsoft has chosen their bed. Now they will lie in it.
-BrentI had high hopes for MS, was badly disappointed (Score:2)
Instead we got Visual C++, Win32, MFC, COM, and all the rest of it.
And things have been getting worse, rather than better.
Microsoft's APIs, "drag-and-drop" approach to programming, non-round-trip wizards, lack of runtime safety, lack of API error checking, and dozens of released attempts at getting some APIs right, to name just a few, make Windows programming the most painful kind of programming I know.
But worst of all, their "designs" just lack coherence. It may take me a few hours to figure out the design and functionality of GTK or X11 or Berlin or Qt or Zope or many other libraries designed for UNIX. There are a few parts of Windows that are similarly coherent. But, for the most part, after more than five years of Win32, I still don't "get it", and I have yet to meet anybody who does. Microsoft seems to have a nack for taking basically good ideas (message passing, MVC, core-COM, etc.) and turning them into systems that make the Winchester Mystery House look tame by comparison.
BTW, I'm among the "1 million programmers" signed up for their developer program (MSDN, full subscription), as are many of my friends and colleagues. Also, a lot of "Windows programmers", in particular on the server side, are simply UNIX programmers that do the minimum amount of work necessary to make UNIX server software work on NT, without ever using a lot of Microsoft's APIs. And, as I like to quip when people marvel at the amount of software for Windows, "Windows has 50000 application programs for it, 45000 of which are there to fix bugs, provide missing OS functionality, and work around UI problems in Microsoft Windows".
Yes, I think Microsoft should be worried about this: this is a hard problem they are up against. Their usual approach of adding more code and APIs to the system won't fix it--it's at the heart of their problem.
Re:Give me a break. (Score:1)
While this response to the article wasn't off-topic or anything, I'm surprised that one wouldn't take the time to read an article on a non-/.'ed site. It's seems to be happening more as far as I can tell.
If an article or topic interests one enough to post comments to slashdot, one should read the article, look over current posts to see if there's a redundency, then post...it leads to a better, more informative site.
Again, not targeted at you BiGGo...just curious that you opened your sentence with that statement. One should know not to judge an article by the summary that Taco or Hemos might normally post
AC
Re:Win32api vs Unix and Java (Score:1)
Mostly frontends to "whois" etc...
By the way, you shouldn't compare Win32 API to Xlib - those are on completely different levels. It is more like Win32 API = GTK
And I agree with previous poster - GTK is ugly and simply not pleasant to program in or use ( hint ; try QT and you will see the truth
Re:Reality Check (Score:1)
I do not understand logic behind decision to create GUI toolkit in C, especially at a time when even GNU C++ compilers are catching up with the C++ standard. Anyone can point anything that would make C better suited for GUI work than C++ ?
Re:Developer attraction (Score:1)
Not when it comes to GUI development. X crashes often and sometimes nothing will get you back short of telneting from remote box.
Basically, X is terrible, completely obsolete ( how many Linux users run X over network ?? 0.05 % perhaps )
Re:Why I will NOT develop under Windows. (Score:1)
Re:Well...kinda (Score:1)
[FOREACH {j} { make sure that this is on the same line otherwise you will get criptic errors.
It is almost like fricking BASIC in 80s
Re:Read "The Dumbing-down of programming" article (Score:1)
You have to set some treshold and trust software written by others - for you it might be libc for others "MS wizards."
On the other hand it is importand to understand how all of this works underneath but reimplementing the well every time is simply,well, stupid.
Re:Database app? No problem, with or without a GUI (Score:1)
Re:BINARY COMPATIBILITY?! Hahahahahaah... (Score:1)
Re:I quit my last job because of the changing API (Score:1)
He,he. I hate to tell you that but this is how so called "world of free software" operates. Have you ever seen GPL code that actually has comments?
Good luck
Re:Microsoft treats its developers like dirt. (Score:1)
No , this is good for the users and bad for developers... and this is exactly why you are getting paid.
Re:What Can He Say? (Score:1)
Or things like Gnumeric ? If Gnome is that "real" software then thank you
BTW. Don't forget that lot of things like Samba are simply implementations of commercial designs and most of the time trying to catch up with the orginal.
GCC - as a compiler not very impresive ( only thing going for it is that it is available for 1000 different platforms)
Re:BECAUSE (Score:1)
Re:Working for Free (Score:1)
What the hell is that ? It is MS source code and they have a right to do whatever they want.
If "another company" wants to make better product they are free to do so but why MS should allow them to use code that they invested milions of $ in ??
That's stupid !
If I create something great, then somebody else grabs my source, hires bunch of people and creates something even better based on my source then how do I benefit from that ?
Re:Microsoft treats its developers like dirt. (Score:2)
This is horrible and very painfull for someone who develops for Linux...
Re:Win32api vs Unix and Java (Score:1)
> (it has pretty much equal status as far as the
> Kernel is concerned).
That's exactly why cygwin32 is so much better than products like Interix - you can mix and match your Unix code with win32 code to do GUI stuff, COM, etc.
NT actually already ships with a Posix subsystem,
though the current one sucks beyond belief.
But basically, why would you want to deploy on Windows at all if you can't do COM or GUI stuff? Those are supposed to be their two big selling points.
so-called open source platform? (Score:1)
Re:so-called open source platform? (Score:1)
HTML formatted posts need paragraph markings. Why doesn't anybody tell me these things?
*sigh*
Re:Give me a break. (Score:1)
exactly.
and then they wonder why no third partys wnt to develop for Windows anymore.
go figure.
-geekd
Give me a break. (Score:1)
Come on, "Competition is a concern"?
Microsoft was founded to be THE competition.
Have they innovated anything and somebody competed against it?
As I recall, Microsoft sees a technology, steals it, and competes against it.
You may say it is the same, but think of a world without competition (scary, isn't it?),
Microsoft will not exist, since every product they would make had existed already!
The one product they have invented, Bob, was such a sucess,
that all the other comapies were afraid that if they copy it, it will never be as good.
In fact, Microsoft thought that since it is so good, they should discontinue it entirely,
so not to spoil it and ruin it's reputation of a bestseller.
(the following statement makes the same sense as the above ballmer's statement)
They say Linux competes with them.
They have competed against UNIX, and the truth is that Linux bites market shares mostly from Unices.
(though it gets the mindshare of NT admins)
The last thing ever they would want is the compatition to end,
where will they steal their features from?
They wouldn't like to be an only product, since new ideas mean more to them -
Without them, people will not upgrade,
and they would have less bloat. (remember the "love bloat" article written by that Microsoft developer?)
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
Re:What a jerk Ballmer (and pretty much ... (Score:1)
Care to back that up with some examples? I don't particularly like Oracle or Larry Ellison personally, but I've seen no evidence that they are anywhere near as unethical as Microsoft and Bill Gates. And at least Oracle has always had credible competition from companies like Informix, Sybase, Ingres (Computer Associates), Software AG (Adabas), etc.
Re:What a jerk Ballmer (and pretty much ... (Score:1)
O.K., that is only one of the many questionable tactics that Microsoft uses. It is also a far less effective practice when it is done by a company which has credible competitors, because when the vapor fails to condense, customers can choose to go with a competitors product, or at least threaten to.
It's well established in the printed record. This spring I read a 'sympathetic' biography of Larry Ellison (it was obvious that it was written by somebody who had received friendly access to Larry) where some of his personal ethical lapses were documented.
Personal ethical lapses by management, while not a good thing, have no bearing on whether a company is excercising illegal monopoly powers or trade practices. Bringing them up here doesn't seem to do much to further your argument, but rather makes it look like you have a personal beef against Larry Ellison.
Things like sleeping with employees, having them fired when he breaks up with them. Outright lieing to customers about new releases. The book title is "The Difference between God and Larry Ellison (God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison)".
I never said Larry Ellison was a nice guy, I just said I didn't see any evidence that Oracle was nearly as bad in their business dealings as Microsoft. I still haven't seen anything to change that.
Oh, and wether or not a company has "credible competition" has nothing to do with wether a company is ethical or not.
But it has everything to do with whether they are using monopoly powers to crush smaller competitors. In other words, if a company has credible competition it tends to act to a certain degree to keep them 'honest'.
I am NOT writing this to apologize for Microsoft in any way or form, just to point out that it's not a pink-and-fuzzy world out there of happy ethical competitors, except for big mean bad Microsoft.
Nobody ever said it was a perfect world. A lot of companies do a few questionable things. The difference is that Microsoft continuously uses every dirty trick in the book even when they don't need to.
Get real.
Actually, it seems pretty obvious who isn't dealing with reality.
day++,dollar++; (Score:1)
This is a STRANGE metaphor. (Score:1)
Re:Well, hmmmm, interesting Style McCloud... (Score:1)
I supported AT&T 3B computer and their networks on a support hotline for 5 years (86 - 91) and I've walked many people (including the unknowing) into restoring a Unix box to where I could access the box. Unix is just as supportable as NT. But I would add that certain equipment was required to do it right (a modem, the original disks, and a recent backup). Most Unix boxes I've worked with followed our recommendations for power (UPS) and access (a modem). I'm not that familiar with NT (my friend is) but I don't see it being any less frustrating than Linux when it bombs out.
Windows gives the average user what they want. Ease of use and out of the box functionality. When Linux matures enough for that then the world will be a better place.
I sort of agree, I find that MS just moves the frustrations from up front to else where. With *nix the tough questions tend to be up front which can scare the users.
--
Linux Home Automation - Neil Cherry - ncherry@home.net [mailto]
http://members.home.net/ncherry [home.net] (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lig htsey/52 [fortunecity.com] (Graphics)
Does anyone else see this going where I see it...? (Score:4)
- We all know M$ is deep in their DoJ trial. Check.
- They are in this situation because of bad (illegal?) marketing practices which prevent competition (Yes, I saw it up close and in person).
- One of their biggest "defenses" is that Linux is "competition" to them.
- We've probably noticed that M$ has let up a little on their OEM restrictions since this trial began (e.g., we're now actually seeing some OEM's selling linux boxen).
Now.. consider this article, and Ballmer's statements, and also the article earlier today on MSNBC about *BSD.- Right in the middle of the *BSD article, they placed a link to "Discuss Linux and BSD on the BBS", opening up a forum for the less tactful Linux advocates to do their less-than-tactful Linux advocacy.
- This latest article portends to cast a shadow of competition behind Linux, taking some heat off M$.
Get to the point!! Okay. Consider what's going to happen if the DoJ -does- by Microsoft's claims of competition from Linux. Consider also that having a lot of money (which Bill Gates has more of than anyone else in the world [except maybe that one sultan of somewhere.. right? ugh]) can get you a LOT of bonus points in the American "Justice" system. So, let's suppose that M$ gets out of this anti-trust suit with a "not guilty", or whatever the equivalent ruling. Or even suppose that they get off with a slap on the wrist.. then what? Then they dive head-long back into their anti-competitional business while they still have a majority of market share. OEM's and customers alike still depend heavily on M$ because they haven't had the time to switch strongly to Linux (and let's face it.. Linux isn't quite ready). Next step? M$, using their traditional brute force, retakes the market share they've lost in the past few months, summarily crushing the "Linux Movement". Wow.. don't I sound paranoid? Probably, but that's honestly how I see it. Anyone else agree? ZeitgeistRe:M$ don't get the brains anymore. (Score:1)
When I was in school 4-5 years ago the draw to Linux was the ability to have a similar development environment at home that was at school (Unix). In the United States, at least in the University of California school system, I've noticed a good number of Windows machines infiltrating the CS departments. Can you believe that they'll set up a WinNT box running a Hummingbird Exceed X server as a terminal instead of a Unix box?
I wonder if they are doing this as a response to complaints from industry that new grads don't know anything about Win32.
On a side note, my new employer is having a hell of a time finding developers who want to work on Linux.
Re:Of course... (Score:1)
Yeah, I hear that Linus is drawing unemployment. [hint: there is some sarcasm somewhere in this post]
Maybe programmers will be able to start doing something useful for society, rather than writing software that serves no purpose other than locking in market share.
evilempiritis? (Score:1)
Re:M$ don't get the brains anymore. (Score:1)
You're just seeing what they got for their money.
Re:I used to develop for Windows and heres why I l (Score:1)
Or accidently sues them.
BTW, how do you "accidently" sue someone? Do they draw up papers for a suit just before they sign a new partnership, and keep the papers on file in case of an emergency?
Re:Does anyone else see - uh huh (Score:1)
The thought bubbles over Mr. Ballmers heads are so transparent, "if we persuade people that we have a lot of competition at the moment then maybe we will be left alone to dominate, errm compete on our totally non-level playing field, ha ha ha ha!"
A note to Microsoft, "strong competition" is when a companies like Oracle and IBM repeatedly kicks your ass in the database market.
No, you are not paranoid, they are out to get you
sigh... (Score:5)
Free M$ tools? Whatever would you want *them* for (Score:1)
of writing software for the Micro$oft platform,
just as I would have trouble getting behind the
idea of seeking adoption into a family which has
proven its ability to eat its young!
Re:Of course... (Score:1)
Remember that most programmers aren't working on software for companies that 'sell' software, but rather on internal systems. They still get paid (apparently :) ).
Free software can't cover all the needs of the many different industries out there.
Re:Of course... (Score:1)
It's just a personal opinion, with no facts to back them up (since when have facts been important in /. forums?).
If you think about it however there are likely to be a lot more proprietary internal systems in companies like Banks, manufacturing, etc, that don't use off the shelf software (or customise off the shelf software) and so still require programmers to keep it all running.
I could be wrong of course, i'm just sharing my opinion :)
Re:Of course... it's not the programmers .. (Score:1)
The thing that worries the MBAs is 'how are marketing managers going to make any money'
Re:his motive? (Score:2)
In most cases, lying is a Bad Thing, but certainly not illegal. Two cases where lying is illegal, however, are under oath (that's perjury) and making claims about a competitor's product (that's slander). A good law firm should catch them talking out of both sides of their mouth in these arenas, and thus show them guilty of one or the other offense.
Microsoft could either say that they overstated the competition's quality in the DOJ trial, or understated the competition's quality in the realm of the marketroids. If they do the former, they dig themselves deeper into the antitrust hole. If they do the latter, they have to retract the statements, you get legal press releases, and the competitor can use the DOJ statements (wow, this is really good software, it competes with ours) as advertising copy. AFAIK, court transcripts are not subject to copyright law.
Re:Interesting Microsoft world view... (Score:2)
But if you mean free speech rather than free beer, you're right. Smart IS directors are realizing a huge advantage with Linux: even if there is a horrible bug in the OS, they can hire one of several companies to fix it! If(?) there is a horrible bug in NT, you have to either pray for Microsoft to fix it (risky and time-consuming) or change OSs altogether (mucho expensive). If your Linux support team fails you, you can get a brand-new Linux support team without switching platforms.
That's what makes Linux less expensive in the enterprise. The support is non-monopolistic, thus cheaper. And the support is the expensive part.
Re:Why I will NOT develop under Windows. (Score:2)
In dealing with a software development headhunter back in 1997, he sets me up on two interviews the same day. I go to the first one, and they propose teaching me to program in Windows to convert some software. That interview went little further; I wasn't going to waste their time. Understand, BTW, that I told the headhunter that I wasn't going to develop in Windows.
I call the headhunter, and explain this to him. He notes that they were willing to teach me Windows programming. I note that it's not that I can't (I have), but that I won't. He notes that the second interview is also a Windows job, and then incredulously asks, "But how do you expect to get a software engineering job if you won't program in Windows?"
I dropped that headhunter like a hot isotope.
Microsoft treats its developers like dirt. (Score:2)
That is why I won't program for Windows, not because I can't, not because I don't like Windows (actually it's very pretty), not because I don't like Microsoft (except for the way they treat me), not because I hate/fear/envy Bill Gates, but because it's bad for me in the long term.
-russ
Why MS has already lost (Score:3)
When I start my own software company, will I try to compete in the Windows environment where MS has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to obliterate any competition? Hell, no! Even if I didn't think OSS was technically superior, I would be *forced* to choose it since there's simply no viable alternative!
When I develop specifications for a new product for my employer, will I merrily tie my company's future to a company which has repeatedly shown a willingness to frivilously change APIs so ensure the market is forced to upgrade? Hell, no! Again, even if I didn't think OSS was technically superior, I would have to mark down the Microsoft solution since it would require constant maintainance due to the continually changing API.
When the software industry was a small piece of the economy a single company could effect a stranglehold on it. But now software is *everywhere*, and *no* single software company can long dominate the marketplace. I often think of this economic sector like a farm: the best way to ensure a solid harvest is to rotate your crops. Leaving a field fallow may look like a "waste," but those small plants inject valuable chemicals into the soil.
Microsoft is classic corporate farming. It keeps harvesting the same crop year after year, and it uses every bit of the plant while violently ripping out any non-crop plant. This depletes the soil, and its response is to pile on the shit. Sorry, the petrochemical fertilizers. But that will only work so long; it replaces the gross biomatter, but it still messes up the microculture.
M$ don't get the brains anymore. (Score:4)
Here in Sweden when we recruit new software engineers direct from college they show no particular interest in Win32. Instead they are fluent in the UNIX/Linux environment. I have also got the impression that this distaste for Win32 is valid in most countries.
Each time a fresh guy comes on interview and passes my room, he smiles and chuckles when seeing my Linux posters. He becomes very comfortable and often admits to use Win32 sometimes for gameplay but not for any real serious things. This is a big plus and one step closer to get an offer.
Microsoft do have every reason to be scared. They will have huge difficulties to steal any new technology from small upstart companies. Their foodchain is completly broken.
//Pingo
Re:Well...kinda (Score:2)
The Windows message passing requires every window in the food chain to examine each message with a string of compares to see if it handles this message. This causes an geometric increase in message processing time with increased functionality (each added unit of function uses a "Window").
Ironically enough, considering the Winbloat phenomenon, this was a conscious trade-off sacrificing speed to reduce size. Reasonable enough on a 1MB system with a 50 MB hard drive, but not we have 64 MB systems with 8 GB hard drives and we STILL pay the price of that decission. (So much for WGIII's legendary technological leadership
Re:Win32api vs Unix and Java (Score:2)
But I know how crazy it is to talk up anything Microsoft does in this forum. Sadly there are a lot of people with an irrational hatred of Microsoft in the world. They somewhat blunt the real criticism that is due that company and their products.
Re:What a jerk Ballmer (and pretty much ... (Score:2)
Oh, and wether or not a company has "credible competition" has nothing to do with wether a company is ethical or not.
I am NOT writing this to apologize for Microsoft in any way or form, just to point out that it's not a pink-and-fuzzy world out there of happy ethical competitors, except for big mean bad Microsoft.
Get real.
All Statements from M$ will use the term Server (Score:3)
"BSD or Linux" equals server.
"BSD or Linux" does not equal Desktop.
He wants most people to think that it is only for servers, and that it wouldnt do them any good at home.
Well, hmmmm, interesting Style McCloud... (Score:2)
I work for one of the nations largest ISPS and have first hand experience of going from a strictly windows enviroment to a Unix flavor.(freeBSD).
Granted that all flavors of Unix tend to be more reliable and more scalable than Windows version out there. I use to replace Unix boxes with NT servers and learned first hand the trouble caused mainly due to reliability. I would take down an 8 year old 286 that had been totally stable and then explain that the nice shiny NT server might need some TLC every now and then. BUT this brings me to two points.
UNIX - is a great OS, how cannot it not be with so many years of growth under its belt? But Unix is so cumbersome to the average user that the apps written for it for the average user have to be choice based, leaving out any intuition on the user . You can either hit this key or that key.
And, when Unix crashes, you actually have to make a trip out there because there is no way you can walk some average joe through a fix on the phone.
Windows on the other hand is buggy but easy to use. People have it at home and tech support though often is fairly easy(hit the rest button). Windows best point is that it gets the average user pissed off enough to look under the hood, maybe install a new device, build a new pc, and decide that they like computing so much they need to find a real OS, change their outlook on life, and leave home.
The average user is where we make our money. Windows gives the average user what they want. Ease of use and out of the box functionality. When Linux matures enough for that then the world will be a better place.
AND as for the guy who turned down 120 grand and stock options? You sound like a physician just out of med school who thinks by grace a god he should be paid big bucks. Or an MCSE.
Frizz0
p.s. I run linux with apache at home, as well as 98