Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com)
News.com talks with Steve Ballmer about why Microsoft is not afraid of Linux.
"Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in. I would argue that our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that community.
Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition."
(Log in to post comments)
What has Microsoft done that is innovative? Posted Apr 25, 2003 14:10 UTC (Fri) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] Perhaps Mr. Ballmer could provide some examples of innovative technology successfully brought to market by Microsoft. As far as I can see the majority of Microsoft's bread and butter products are re-implementations of work done on by DEC in the 1970s and by Xerox/Apple in the 1980s. Some done better, some done worse than the originals, but all derivative. Am I missing something?sPh
What has Microsoft done that is innovative? Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:03 UTC (Fri) by Xanadu (guest, #1215) [Link] This is exactly what I was going to type (I would've put in a few 4 letter words in, but...).I don't see what they consider "inovative". "Linux is based on a 20 year old Operating System". First of all, it's over 30 years old (not 20 - assuming they mean UNIX in general)... Secondly, Where did they get their Bread and Butter code for their TCP/IP stack? Where did they get their NetBEUI (crap) stuff? Hmmm... It wasn't theirs in any sense. My thought is that they are "afraid" of "Linux" because they can't take it. It's GPL'ed, not BSD'ed. That's my personal feeling. I could be wrong. They've/We've (*NIX world - I'm just a user/supporter, I'm not a Codist) done a LOT over even just the past few years. Things MS never even thought to implement are done and almost "Old-Hat" at this point". They are STILL trying to even do something like catch up (Server 2003 proves that...). They can't use GPL'ed code because it'll bite them hard. Again, It's just my thoughts.
What has Microsoft done that is innovative? Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:27 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] "Linux is based on a 20 year old Operating System". First of all, it's over 30 years old (not 20 - assuming they mean UNIX in general)... Secondly, Where did they get their Bread and Butter code for their TCP/IP stack? Where did they get their NetBEUI (crap) stuff? Hmmm... It wasn't theirs in any sense.I think what Steve is really trying to do here (and for the most part succeeding at, unfortunately) is exploit the ignorance of most IT "professionals." I don't mean to belittle anyone, I'm just trying to point out the problem: there are tens of thousands of people (maybe more) who consider themselves to be computer experts who can't even partition their own hard drive. They buy the "Linux is based on a 20 year old operating system" line hook, line, and sinker, simply because they don't know any better, and they don't have the motivation to find out otherwise. There's a certain security in shared ignorance. I could go on all day... :-) Following Steve's line of reasoning, I guess we could say that Windows XP is based on CP/M. After all, DOS 1.0 was based on CP/M, so everything that MSFT has done since must be too, right? I think the fact that Linux has always been just "Linux", and not "Linux 386", "Linux for Workgroups", "Linux 95", "Linux NT", "Linux 2000", or "Linux XP" leads many people to think that it hasn't changed much, not realizing that parts of it have been rewritten so many times that it bears little resemblance to what we called Linux 7 or 8 years ago.
What has Microsoft done that is innovative? Posted Apr 26, 2003 9:24 UTC (Sat) by mrchaotica (guest, #10899) [Link] I don't claim to be an expert, but I've never heard about any precursors to "Microsoft Bob" or the "Office Assistant." Maybe they "innovated" those!
What has Microsoft done that is innovative? Posted Apr 29, 2003 5:27 UTC (Tue) by guybar (subscriber, #798) [Link] Actually, I regard these annoying traits as inovative indeed;MS tried to solve a very hard problem (teaching the computer illiterates efficiently) in an automated way. They may be failed innovations (not completely, IMHO), they are
The software industry doesn't need innovation Posted Apr 25, 2003 15:31 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] ...so much as it needs good implementations. This is not to knock innovation, or to agree that it can't happen in the free software community, but there's really no shortage of good ideas floating around for software. Every person who has used a computer probably has a few notions for what they would like to see. What's lacking are people to implement these ideas, to implement them well, and to implement them in a way that's not anchored to some proprietary codebase that won't talk to anything else and/or will disappear and become useless in a few years. As someone else pointed out, it's hard to identify any widely used software product (Microsoft or otherwise) that is not a re-implementation of a basically much older idea. And that's exactly how it should be. The scary thing for Microsoft is that free software implementations improve more-or-less monotonically. It is used to competitors that are reset to zero every few years when Microsoft runs them out of business.
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 15:51 UTC (Fri) by dr_lha (guest, #86) [Link] Clone of a 20+ year old OS? Windows was first announced 20 years ago (and was released 18 years ago) - so 20 years old isn't that bad :-)Otherwise this article is typical Balmer bluster. How many times can you fit the word innovation into a paragraph?
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:13 UTC (Fri) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] Advice to Microsoft:Deny and bash the reality of Opensource as long as possible. Increase licensing 6 fees. Continue to make newer incompatible versions of Word, Excel etc. Increase the hardware checks in _all_ programs like in XP. Promote DRM for "everybody's" protection. Increase enforcement of piracy software use and audits of public institutions. Brag about inventing things you did not invent. Continue with the head in the sand routine. Continue to charge $450 for a $60 Office suite and $150 for a $30 OS.
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 15:58 UTC (Fri) by freeballer (guest, #10205) [Link] I'm not an expert about microsoft or pcs, but I know quite a bit and I know that microsoft hasn't invented a whole lot to the pc community unless it only works with it's own OS, browser, etc... As as far as a copy of an old 20 year program. At lest he didn't steal it which as far as I'm concerned that's what microsoft did even if legally they didn't.Windows is a great OS, if you don't want/have to think about what's going on or how/why it works and if you want crappy, faulty software crammed down your face. At least with linux you have a choice in what you install or use. (eg They (windows) for some reason think a server should have a webbrowser, media player and messenger) Duh why??
Newbie experience: Ease of use (was: Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com)) Posted May 1, 2003 19:01 UTC (Thu) by KingKevbo (guest, #10975) [Link] (eg They (windows) for some reason think a server should have a webbrowser, media player and messenger) Duh why??I hate to fork the topic a bit, but there's something that I've been pondering in my experience with both Linux and Windows. I'm a Linux newbie and have had some experience with Windows 2000 servers and. I've found that, with what little Linux experience I've had, it's been easier to set up many services under Linux than Win2k. The Windows GUI seems to obfuscate many aspects of server setup (eventually making the administrator drop down to a command prompt anyway for certain functions). Even after taking a couple of MCSE classes I find myself having to look up where Windows is hiding a particular administrative doodad just so I could do something simple (like turning off Simple File Sharing in XP :-( ), just because it is in such an illogical place. If I have to edit the Registry to get something accomplished, then it's certainly not worth my time to have a GUI with a web browser, media player, etc. On the other hand, I set up a Debian box as a mail server here at work with very little Linux experience (and I mean very little: Midnight Commander was my best friend ;-)). It took me a long time only because I was trying to do something relatively fancy (spam relay prevention, etc.). And the more I learn, the easier it's getting. IMHO, GUIs don't necessarily make life easier, especially when they get in your way. M$ seems to obfuscate more than innovate (if you call having deep pockets innovation). :-) Kevbo
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:08 UTC (Fri) by euvitudo (subscriber, #98) [Link] I find Ballmer rather amusing. It's like watching a high energy child trying to convince his parents that his way is the best way. He also reminds me of a used car salesman (where, of course, his used car is Windows, and in this case he's selling Win2k as Win2k3 with a few more uncompelling features).Aside from that, the definition of innovation is to present something new. I find it interesting that to "innovate" is to "present something as or as if new". The software community does that all the time, whether they are Microsoft or FOSS or any other community. *nix application programmers tend to follow the applications that are in current demand. Microsoft tends to follow what Apple does. In this game, I believe that Apple is probably the most innovative (look how many *nix clones and variants there are of Aqua--also look at the, howbeit poor, clone of Aqua that is WindowsXP). Ballmer does have a good point concerning consistency in the market. Linux has shown a consistent improvement over the years. I believe there has always been improvement. There is still much to improve, but I have no doubt that the FOSS community will provide that improvement, whether it lies in kernel space or user space. Sure, Microsoft can consistently force users into Microsoft's desired licencing plan or upgrade cycle. Just as well, the FOSS community can tailor their software to what users truly want, providing them with consistently improving software tailored to their needs, not necessarily the developer's needs. I think that is the strength of the FOSS community. Long live the community!
Ballmer: Nothing worth waking up for Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:14 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I think Stallman's GPL is very innovative.Although the idea of passing on freedom to users was not his, I think he was the first to formailise it in a binding license. Ciaran O'Riordan
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:28 UTC (Fri) by parimi (subscriber, #5773) [Link] It is highly irritating to read Ballmer's comments on Linux. He earns the ire of all linux lovers who read this article and it really doesnt help him promoting the cause of his fancied Windows 2003 server. I know of a few friends who tried 2003 server and their opinion was unanimous - sucks as ever!--ravi
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 16:45 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] See http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation. for more about the history of software innovation.A company that doesn't innovate isn't by definition unethical, but it's wrong to claim that you're an innovator if you aren't. There seems to be very little credible evidence even slightly in Mr. Ballmer's favor. Ballmer doesn't even cite one example in his interview. Yes, their operating system was built later than Unix, but that doesn't mean it's an innovator; indeed, Windows and Office are rebuilds of pre-existing concepts. I'd be curious to hear of examples clearly demonstrating that Microsoft's products have been more innovative than their competitors.
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 22:28 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] In the 80's Microsoft's idea of innovation was to vaporware to death any company that announced and interesting and innovative product. Microsoft seldom if ever delivered on their promises. As others have noted, towards the end of the 80's their idea of innovation shifted to riping off Apple.On a related note, how old is VMS? Because NT is pretty much an ugly mishmash of DOS/Windows/VMS. None of which is much less then twenty years old...
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 26, 2003 3:24 UTC (Sat) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] On a related note, how old is VMS?25 years old according to this VMS history page: http://www.levitte.org/~ava/vms_hist.htmlx Yeah, what about it Steve? Perhaps MSFT denies that NT is largely based on VMS (and OS/2, with bits of DOS thrown in).
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted May 3, 2003 8:40 UTC (Sat) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link] In around 1993, this was almost the subject of legal action by DEC. It was resolved by a favourable partnership agreement worth a great deal of money for DEC.Rich.
By Hook or by Crook Posted Apr 25, 2003 17:55 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Ballmer's comment that, "By hook or by crook, so to speak, there will be 5-plus million servers, roughly, sold in the next 12 months," was very revealing. A Freudian slip?"By hook" implies force. "By crook" implies deception. This really is how MS has always operated, but it's interesting that (1) its CEO feels free to express it so casually, and (2) that the interviewer lets it slide by.
Heh Posted Apr 25, 2003 18:18 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Actually its closer to 30 years than to 20. I bothersMicrosoft that their NT "(new technology)" can't beat "a clone" of software written 30 years ago. :) I don't know why people think old software has to suck.
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 19:50 UTC (Fri) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] Ballmer is campaigning to be Saddam's next Information Minister.
Do not believe Penguinista lies! Posted Apr 25, 2003 21:34 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] The infidels invading the desktop market have walked into their tombs! Even now we are stomping on their pathetic Unix clones. Soon we will drive them from the server market. They are commiting suicide on at our gates, and we will encourage them to do more of this in the future. There are no Penguinistas in Redmond! Never!
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux (News.com) Posted Apr 25, 2003 21:54 UTC (Fri) by sidboyce (guest, #10891) [Link] You have to laugh at Ballmer's comments, just what a normally explosive character I have as a friend did a few weeks ago when someone told him that using Linux was a massive backward step.
Translating corporate-ese for the masses... Posted Apr 26, 2003 4:32 UTC (Sat) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] What Ballmer is saying is this:Tried and true is bad... our customers don't want that. They want fresh and bug-ridden, and that's exactly what we at Micro$oft give them.
Linux PCs Posted Apr 28, 2003 10:45 UTC (Mon) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] What I think most people miss is not Ballmer's usual crap about innovation, but the piece about Linux PCs: "A Linux PC in most countries is a PC in which somebody is being encouraged to pirate Windows. We conducted some surveys about this in one large Asian country, where we found that, of all PCs that didn't have Windows installed on them when they were sold, 99 percent wound up with Windows on them within 30 days." Does this show us their new direction of attack against smaller Linux PC vendors?
Linux PCs Posted Apr 28, 2003 20:27 UTC (Mon) by crouchet (guest, #1084) [Link] >> Does this show us their new direction of attack against smaller Linux PC vendors?<< Well, if the MPAA and RIAA can get congerss to pass laws making file trading software illegal because it *could* be used to swap copyrighted works, then maybe M$ can use those laws to stop sales of desktop systems without Windoze because they *could* be used for illegal copies of Windows. Hmmm... JC
|
|||||||||||