Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Business Technology: About Linux: An Open Letter to Microsoft (TechWeb)
CMP's Editor in Chief has posted an open letter to Microsoft.
"First, customers will deploy both Windows and Linux. Second, they will ideally want all of their systems to be able to work together without requiring 5,000 man-years of workarounds. Third, your value to those customers will decline if you continue to give them reason to believe that you are intentionally refusing to take the steps necessary to help them run their businesses, including their heterogeneous systems, more effectively."
(Log in to post comments)
Business Technology: About Linux: An Open Letter to Microsoft (TechWeb) Posted Oct 20, 2003 18:21 UTC (Mon) by enocompton (subscriber, #12197) [Link] The one and only true way for Microsoft to compete with Linux is to convert Windows and Office to open source. If Microsoft fails to do so, they are toast, albeit in a mighty slow toaster.What would happen if Microsoft were to open the source to Windows and Office? Lots of us (but not me, not all of us) would turn back to Microsoft. There might even be two viable OSs instead of the current process, which seems to me to indicate Linux will prevail over all.
Business Technology: About Linux: An Open Letter to Microsoft (TechWeb) Posted Oct 20, 2003 19:03 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I don't think their business model could support such a radical change. Free Software will win in the end, but Microsofts best tactic is to slow it's advance as much as possible.This is done by pressuring the EU to accept patents (which stagnate the market), by funding SCO who make us look disreputable, by locking their customers in through funny license deals and even funnier file formats, and by devalueing Free Software by encouraging us to say "OpenSource", a term they can easily counter with "Look, we've openned our source, we do better than open, we have Shared Source". Most "Linux-friendly" Mega corps are using the same tactics, Microsoft just do it best.
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 20, 2003 20:49 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] MS Office on Linux (natively) would legitimize Linux as an OS for business use. Windows is largely a platform to run MS Office -- I say this because many business desktops run Windows, Office and some Anti-virus program -- and giving Linux the same advantage as Windows could (would) severely impact business Windows desktop sales. I doubt it would ever happen.MS open sourcing Office? Never. Or, at least, not until that bottom-line boosting cash cow is sapped of value. If MS opened Office, with what would they replace the consistent, dependable licensing revenue? Support services? Development tools? XBox games? T-Shirts? I remember MS in the 80's and early 90's as being the low-cost "nearly as good as" software alternative to WordPerfect, MultiMate, Wang Word Processing systems, etc. Even Excel was cheaper than Lotus, especially bundled in Office. At some point it killed off its high priced competition (or at least drove it to consolidate in the software burial grounds like Computer Associates) and found itself on the top of the heap of business automation applications. I'm sure there was a party in Redmond when that occurred. The glee must have been unrestrained because it was clear, by 1998, that no company could garner the resources necessary to mount a successful challenge to its dominance. But MS's low-cost competition, which also provides a "nearly as good as" product alternative, is not merely cheap (or free for the taking) but also Open and non-proprietary. Cheap is one thing, non-proprietary means not even Sun can lock OpenOffice.org users into its own business model. MS won't bend on this. They will not open Office code or even the document format. And it will be their undoing, ultimately.
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 20, 2003 21:03 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Actually, I was in Germany in 1994 and I remember Microsoft Office and Star Office boxes placed side-by-side in a computer store. Star Office was more expensive, if I remember correctly. It was a local product back then. Unlike Microsoft Office, which consisted of 16-bit programs for Windows 3.1, Star Office had a native OS/2 version.
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 21, 2003 3:05 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] True, MS will never open source Windows or Office -- at least, not in the fashion we understand those words -- but that wouldn't be necessary.I've been predicting since about 1998 that MS would either be out of business completely by close-of-business, or would look *entirely* different than they do now, and up to now, I have seen no reason to change that prediction. There is, now you make me think about it, exactly *one* thing they might do to survive: port MS Office to Linux, natively, and cleanly. Alas, it requires them to give up on the desktop OS business. And they're unlikely to be brave enough to do that. But hell, maybe it's just me.
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 30, 2003 17:39 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] Embarassed now."close-of-business 2005"
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 21, 2003 18:11 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] For years Microsoft fought the internet touth and nail. Then one day Gates figured out it was becoming counter productive and the company did a complete 180 degree turn in about one year. Expect the same in regards to Linux and Microsoft applications (Most notably office) in the next three to five years.I don't care for Gates ethics but he's a highly effective business man and he's shown the ability in the past to adjust to a radically changing environment. I doubt he'll have any problem doing so in the future.
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 22, 2003 11:39 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I think you'll find MS did *not* fight the internet. They just didn't realise it was there ...Then when they suddenly did realise it was important, they did a "smash-n-grab" on the browser market (that's why they ended up in court over Netscape), castrated it as a threat to them, and are now ignoring it. Isn't it widely accepted that IE is crap, and has been almost ever since it defeated Netscape? That's why MS is running scared of linux - they can't see any way of castrating it successfully - and they're wise enough to know that even trying to is extremely dangerous - the hydra of greek myth has nothing on linux. Cheers,
MS Office on Linux (natively)? Posted Oct 28, 2003 21:32 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] No, Microsoft really did fight the internet. They had their own protocols and their own idea as to how networking should work and they did their best to discredit IP for at least a couple of years before finally figuring out they were going to lose. At which point they took the most business exediant path. Which is why I expect them to do the same in regards to Linux in a few years.I've heard some technologies discussed in regards to Longhorn that stand and outside shot at giving them the planet wide monopoly they want. I don't think its going to work though. We'll know in about five years one way or the other.
Business Technology: About Linux: An Open Letter to Microsoft (TechWeb) Posted Oct 20, 2003 18:36 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >"Our capitalist system of vigorous and at times brutal competition waged for the benefit of consumers is priceless, and I'm certainly not suggesting you change your corporate name to KarlMarxware and your product's name to Lindox."Of course, if it were actually waged for the benefit of consumers that would be nice, but it's not. It's waged for the benefit of stockholders, with as little benefit given to customers as can be got away with. And of course, the obligatory Marx reference (as well as all the smarmy "you're so wonderful, Microsoft" worshipfulness) indicates that the person needs to do a little more thinking...
Shareholders? Posted Oct 21, 2003 13:56 UTC (Tue) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] Hah. You think business is waged for the shareholders? Do a search on "proxy reform" someday, and see how upset they are with management. Business is run for the CEO and the Board of Directors. Period.
Shareholders? Posted Oct 21, 2003 15:04 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Ah, yes... that too. My mistake. :-)
Shareholders? Posted Oct 22, 2003 11:42 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And commercial investors. Don't forget all the nice kickbacks to the investment INDUSTRY (as opposed to the actual investors themselves).Don't forget. Most people playing the stockmarket today are gambling with OTHER PEOPLE's money. Cheers,
|
|||||||||||