Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com)
News.com has
an interview with Microsoft's Bob Muglia.
"The world has changed a bit. If you went back 18 to 24 months ago, it was
unclear what Linux would look like and how it would evolve. It was thought of
as free. And there was a whole series of attributes that were attributed to
Linux that in retrospect were inaccurate. As time has gone on, it's apparent
that Linux is becoming a set of offerings from commercial vendors. When I
think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux
as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings."
"There's no question about who our biggest competitor is. It's IBM." (Log in to post comments)
Interesting Posted May 20, 2004 17:28 UTC (Thu) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link] They're starting to understand. Or more likely they've understood allalong and they now assume people reading their PR are starting to understand... I expect the FUD will get a lot more subtle.
Interesting Posted May 20, 2004 18:17 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Nope, it's still the same old FUD: "It was thought of as free." This interview is one of a bunch of interviews in which Microsoft sets out the new line of separating Linux and Open Source.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 5:37 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Well, you don't get Redhat for free and you don't get Suse for free. Yes, you can download Linux for free and Linux is free as in speech, but it's certainly not free if you think about TCO, which is what I believe he's talking about.I don't say Linux is more expensive, I'm a big open source fan myself, but this is not Slashdot ;)
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 5:57 UTC (Fri) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] Uhm, no, linux really is free as in beer and speech depenging on the entity using it. Redhat, Suse, Debian, Mandrake etc can all be downloaded and used for free and without breaking any laws or copyrights. When you decide to buy Redhat or whatever thats a choice you make yourself. You might aswell just hire a bunch of competent admins and do the work inhouse without paying anyone, the choice is yours. Heck, even RHEL is availiable gratis from the Whitebox team, compiled, compatible and ready.You must not confuse that some poeple CHOOSE to pay out of their own free will or because they want someone else to blame when things go poff! Microsoft is just trying to make linux look expensive and they are resorting to very strange tactics in doing so. Problably because linux can be as cheap as zero amount of money should the user choose so. Also they are doing a good job at confusing support of the product with cost of purchase of the said product. That anyone here should fall for that is beyond me.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 6:05 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] I think you misunderstand me. You say: "You might aswell just hire a bunch of competent admins and do the work inhouse without paying anyone, the choice is yours"I would like to ask: Do they work for free? I didn't say you couldn't get Linux for free, there is no doubt you can download it for free, but using Linux doesn't make your TCO == $0.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 11:32 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "...but it's certainly not free if you think about TCO "But te "SUBTLE" argument of Microsoft about TCO is that any entreprise, could hire from a extremly large pool, from the general population, that they came already trained in Windows and Office !!?... forgeting the enourmous bill in terms of security and maintenance associated with that. But to counter this administration need evidence they also want to state, i belive, that a good unix/Lunix administrator could be more expensive perhaps than two young Windows ones!!...
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 14:35 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] True, but that is another discussion.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 13:54 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Of course deploying Linux in a business environment will cost you money. What's more, nobody ever claimed it to be otherwise. Microsoft however is suggesting that it is now slowly getting through to people that Linux is "not free", as if only now we have the full picture. They make it feel as if we're all part of a huge scam.I do, of course, hope that you just had a momentary lapse of reason and that you haven't actually bought all this Microsoft nonsense. Microsoft is quite capable of its own publicity mumbo jumbo, they really don't need another troll.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 14:32 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] "Of course deploying Linux in a business environment will cost you money. What's more, nobody ever claimed it to be otherwise."And that is more or less all I've said - yes, in a way my first comment can be seen as defending the MS guy and in a way it is (which is why I made the /. reference), but I just said what I thought he meant and now you're all trying to make me look like a MS zealot, which I know quite a few of my friends would find pretty funny. I don't like Microsoft, but I think our governments are a large part of the problem too, they are simply making it too easy for MS to control the marked with their dirty tricks.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 15:55 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] No, look: I'm trying to point out that the remark that it's now beginning to dawn that "Linux is not free" is a false statement, deliberately frased exactly like that. You're -- maybe inadvertently -- making it look as if the guy actually has a point, while the statement is misleading in two respects: there is no question that Linux is free, in every sense of the word "free", and there can be no doubt that this has always been the case.The fact that there are more and more companies embracing Linux, bringing with it a whole industry that involves loads of money, doesn't change anything about that observation -- it's got nothing to do with it.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 17:18 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] I wont dispute your thinking that it's just more FUD (it's another discussion and it doesn't change my comment was true 5 years ago and it will be true in 10 years), I'm just saying it's correct that Linux isn't free when you look at it from a TCO perspective.
Interesting Posted May 22, 2004 17:26 UTC (Sat) by msmelov (guest, #11243) [Link] nothing is really free from a TCO perspective...
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 15:22 UTC (Fri) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link] I'd rather like to think my post wasn't a troll either!My point was that if you looked at MS FUD two years ago, and this MS PR, the FUD has become a lot more subtle and _closer_ to reality. I think they're assuming their customers understand more, so they have to be more subtle to keep them unsure.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 16:09 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I think you've got a point, in that the FUD is getting more subtle. It's the "closer to reality" part that I think we disagree on. In recent interviews Microsoft executives have been spreading the word that Linux and Open Source, or Free Software, are two separate things, and I think this is just one more example of that. Read the answer to the first question, it's full of nonsense pointing in this direction: vague, false, and misleading. More subtle since it looks more like a serious analysis than the Linux myths page, but still: classic FUD.
Interesting Posted May 20, 2004 18:40 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] They still don't get it. Now he thinks Linux is a technology, where in fact it's an outpouring of something else. That "something else" has already frozen Microsoft out of dominance in web servers, and of the embedded world (including cell phones) and now is gunning for the desktop. However they twist and turn, that something is one thing MS will never have.
Interesting Posted May 21, 2004 5:41 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Hmm...I wouldn't say Linux has a big presence in cell phones...not yet at least...Symbian have a huge markedshare there and Microsoft have at least as big a presence there as Linux does. In fact, I don't think I've even seen a cell phone running Linux in this part of the world (Denmark, which are not *that* far behind Japan in regards to cell phone tech).
Interesting Posted May 28, 2004 8:43 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] You're right in terms of what's in the shops today, but from where I'm standing I see more and more interest and investment from handset producers, especially at the upper end where they are merging with PDAs. I'm pretty confident that Linux will have a significant share of the new phone market in 5 years time. In 10 years' it will probably have taken it over.The biggest threat to this is software patents and DRM lock-in tactics - ie a legal one, not a technological one. EPOC/Symbian is brilliant for really small systems (< 8 or 16Mb RAM) and will retain that niche for probably some time to come, but I have a strong suspicious that it's going to lose out at the upper end. The big handset manfacturers are currently hedging their bets but I'll be surprised if Linux doesn't do really well over the next few years in this field. (which is great, because I make a living from this stuff).
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com) Posted May 20, 2004 18:10 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] How about this one: "One of the great things about doing these releases on a regular basis is that every two years, there is an opportunity to improve things" (emphasis added).Heheh.
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com) Posted May 20, 2004 20:46 UTC (Thu) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] "It was thought of as free. And there was a whole series of attributes that were attributed to Linux that in retrospect were inaccurate."This seems to be more of the usual, uh, market spin. "As time has gone on, it's apparent that Linux is becoming a set of offerings from commercial vendors. When I think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings." This is dead-on, not as a description of what (GNU/)Linux *is*, but how it's used. This is how vendors like IBM pretty much have to think of Linux. "There's no question about who our biggest competitor is. It's IBM." Clearly.
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com) Posted May 20, 2004 21:00 UTC (Thu) by MaRZ (subscriber, #13307) [Link] Well, once again another: "We are the best and ... all the rest!" (Except for IBM... It's scaring them a bit or, maybe, their conscience.)Seems to me there is some refusing sensation or switching to another fields... Elysée fields... No matter how bizarre (or carcinogen) is their growing.... GNU/Linux is an "evolution" de facto, despite their chaos (or knightmares). At least we are already using very confortable, trustable and fast filesystems (reiserfs, xfs, etc). It's is a long run until 2007 ! Have good dreams, Mr. V.P. !
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 1:23 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Looks like MS is worried about IBM big time. For the first time, IBM have an operating system that:- is being constantly maintained and improved And the best part for IBM is that as the time goes by, Linux the OS is getting stronger in every area one can think of. As this process progresses, more and more stuff that IBM sales people would recommend Windows for, can be done with Linux. Not a very good scenario for MS sales. It's not about this year or the next, not even the next five - it is about long term effects of this whole Linux phenomenon that worries MS. And they can come up with as many gimmicks as they want, the facts remain the same - usual tactics to strangle competition won't work. MS will have to become truly creative if they want to win this one. If only this weren't IBM, the patent battle would be all that much easier. Against the company with the biggest number of patents on record, it's pretty tough. It will be interesting to revisit this whole thing 10 years from now. Who knows, by then MS may be just a distant memory in corporate world :-)
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 2:35 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] >>It will be interesting to revisit this whole thing 10 years from now. Who >>knows, by then MS may be just a distant memory in corporate world :-)I cant wait for the day luverley..:-) ... Pete
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 2:45 UTC (Fri) by GerardAirey (guest, #6263) [Link] And I hope it doesn't turn into a world in which IBM holds 90% of the market with *their* version of what was GNU/Linux.
beware MS FUD Posted May 21, 2004 4:15 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] I share your concerns, but it is exactly what MS want us to thinkb: that the code wedeveloped in GNU/Linux was/is/will be ``stolen'' by IBM and RH, so that we stop developing it anymore. If you want to avoid a vendor get ''control'' of GNU/Linux, support vendor-independent community-driven distribution like Debian, Gentoo, and maybe some day Fedora if it become independent from Red Hat.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 10:59 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] IBM's Linux is only useful to end users if it continues to be supported. The fact that it's Linux is only useful to IBM if this means that they can piggyback on community support. So long as they're delivering a legitimate Linux to the end user, I have no problem with IBM being responsible for getting it to 90% of the market. The work that IBM does (figuring out what a user should get, putting it together, shipping it, and answering questions) is the stuff that developers generally hate doing.Furthermore, a 90% IBM-provided GNU/Linux market, with 9% other Linux would be nice for the 9% and for Linux developers in ways that a Windows-dominated market is not. I'll be really pleased the day a hardware vendor writes to the lkml saying, "As a condition of being used in IBM laptops, we're required to have Linux drivers, and IBM has been saying that our code is too bad. In order to meet our schedule, we've decided that it is worth GPLing our driver if people will make it suitable. We don't have specs written yet, but we'll answer questions if the code isn't sufficient."
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 13:45 UTC (Fri) by gomadtroll (guest, #11239) [Link] IBM does't have a GNU/Linux distro. IBM supports Suse, Red Hat & maybe Turbo Linux.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 2:51 UTC (Fri) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] Who knows, by then MS may be just a distant memory in corporate world :-)I think that MS will be around in ten years (barring Parmalat/Enron style accounting shams or an effective anti-trust suit). They have products (Office, Xbox) that will have some value on the market for the years to come, they could even start selling MS-Linux and MS-Office for Linux. Microsoft must accept that they will have to compete and that its profit margins will be lower than the last decade. Anyway, Microsoft has enough money in the bank to slim down the company and fund research in other interesting areas.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 4:20 UTC (Fri) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] I don't completely agree with the statement above. Microsoft must not "Compete", as Linux was never intended as a competitor to MS per se.Microsoft must learn to work WITH Linux, to ensure they maximise their revenues in the future. The sooner they realise that neither FUD nor indirect or direct lawsuits will tamper the linux evolution, the sooner they adopt a competitive attitude rather than defensive (eg: compete on portability of Office, maybe even create a "usability layer" (which they should be able to sell under LGPL for example) to allow linux to have an interface that is as simple to use as Windows (because it is, for anyone)), they they should be able to ride the linux wave along side the wave of windows (longhorn or else). MS could only get brownie points for working WITH linux, ie more money in servers, more potential space in future linux desktops. the great thing about Open Source is that if you do your own development, you can keep if for yourself. If you modify an existing development, you have to provide it back to the community. MS should be able to find their fair share of business there, not even having to submit everything to the Open Source community. If MS set the game straight and play straight too (ie get a third party agreed (appointed by) by the FSF/FLOSS or whatever to check and audit regularly, to ensure trust from the community), there shouldn't be any reason MS couldn't get wads of money. MS are good at user interfaces, they could bring a lot to linux and to themselves if they stopped behaving like kids.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 6:04 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] (which they should be able to sell under LGPL for example) to allow linux to have an interface that is as simple to use as Windows (because it is, for anyone)), You've obviously never seen a computer newbie try to make sense of Windows, have you? Give Aunt Tilly a choice of Windows or Linux as her FIRST computer, and every real-world example I know of - going back a few years now - she's chosen Linux as the easiest system EVERY time. Cheers,
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 6:59 UTC (Fri) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] I gladly disagree with this.A first user will NOT be required to install linux or windows, it should come with it. Now, using Mandrake10, one of the most simple distros ever for home use (I'll admit, it's my view from reading article upon article, not experience), I can't find, when I do a fresh install, a wizard to install and configure Thunderbird. Mozilla firefox too needs to be installed. I haven't tried using a modem or an ADSL modem for a long time, but I remember having to UNDERSTAND what I was supposed to do to connect these. displaying pictures is not the most straightforward thing, although konq is improving. Try configuring ANYTHING. you always have to try and find the right program to run, where it is (even the new computer configurator in Mandrake is still not obvious). Reviewing settings is a pain too. XP's control panel is very obvious, easily recognisable. example: Gnome and KDE go through different processes for doing the same thing. Different UI etc.. Update sites need to be configured, and checked at regular intervals to see if they still exist or are at up to date. Windows update is 1 click. Try installing a new program. take an example of one that would come on a CD from a magazine? I've never seen a decent autorun, auto-install. I don't happen to run much MS at home these days, because I don't like their attitude to renting a piece of code. I try to do as much as possible in Mandrake, but I now can make this happen after being a user for 3 years. Once you know your way around, yes linux is more flexible. however, with Windows, you don't seem to need to know your way around to be able to do most things. Unqualified statements bring nothing to a debate, it only sound like FUD (but this time against MS). FUD serves no purpose and attains no goal (apart from bring press robotic journalist's attention), whether it is one way or the other.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 12:42 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Wol didn't say "install" - he said "use".No first-timer installs either Windows or Linux. OS installs are basically for experienced users. No one is arguing this. From that point of view, most modern Linux distros probably win over Windows as well, but it's rather irrelevant.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 15:42 UTC (Sat) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] I agree with you entirely. However, from what I've read recently, people seem to compare how good a distro is by its installer, which may count a bit, but is irrelevant in general.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 8:35 UTC (Fri) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] By the way, to answer the first question, I have seen my grandmother (80+ yo) learn to use her computer. She learnt with MS, haven't had a chance of showing her linux but I don't expect she'd be the person thinking about setting up urpmi to connect to the right repositories...
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 24, 2004 10:54 UTC (Mon) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] For other than English and major languages, Windows might actually beeasier to use because each language it supports, it supports thoroughly. Having help in one's native language can be pretty important for non- English-speaking/computer-literate people. (I think Linux supports more languages, but that's only partial support)
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 27, 2004 7:53 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Doesn't rhyme with my experiences.In Norway, for example, we've got two official languages, with three official written forms (yes , I know, complicated), first there's Norwegian, which can be written according to one of two different standards; "nynorsk" and "bokmål", and then there's the Sami people in the far north with their own, completely different language. Of these three alternatives, Microsoft, to this day, supports exactly one. They outrigth refused to support Nynorsk, even when the ministry of education offered to pay for the translation, and quoting the fact that Norwegian school-kids have the rigth to get their learning-material in their mother-tongue. KDE, offcourse, supports all three languages. As far as I know, the same problem was prevalent on Iceland; either use Microsft, which is not available in Icelandic at all, or use Linux which is atleast to large parts translated, and where anyone with the needed skills are free to translate the rest. Do you have any actual evidence that there exist languages for which Microsoft provides better support than does free software ? (let's say Linux/KDE, since that's the most typical beginner-combo)
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 27, 2004 13:16 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] I said for the languages that MS *does* support, it supports them fully(for the programs that Windows offers which of course again is a subset of what larger Linux distros offer). E.g. Finnish version of Windows XP is completely translated including all the help material. With KDE & Gnome mostly just programs are translated to Finnish, not their user guides etc. (this is based on SuSE 9.1). Have you really followed a person who doesn't speak / understand English (and is a bit unfamiliar with computers to boot) trying to use a user interface that's only half translated? It provides a painful and enlightening insight into a what makes a good interface. A one that he/she can understand... For a *non-English* speaking person, without an access to a computer literate person, half translated user interface is equal to a not translated one. Linux offers the possibility for translation, it's just that it *really* does need to be comprehensive and good to be competitive alternative.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 7:44 UTC (Fri) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] "MS are good at user interfaces, they could bring a lot to linux and to themselves if they stopped behaving like kids."Personally, MS's interfaces make me want to retch. I tried using Windows on my desktop at work. That lasted about three or four months, where the only thing that made it at all bearable was Cygwin. I finally just installed Linux and fired up good-old Fvwm2 (using the .fvwm2rc file on my home desktop), and I was much happier and more productive. While MS has been _successful_ with interfaces, "good" is such a subjective term that what might seem good to one person won't seem good to everyone. The constant clutter of desktop icons, a dozen layers of sub-menus, and wasted screen real estate for eye candy is what's kept me from using either Gnome or KDE. I have a nice clean interface: a small xlock button, xbiff, a clock, xload, and my virtual desktop switcher. Each takes a very small amount of space and can be covered without impacting functionality. Any other space being occupied is for windows that I'm _using_.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 8:32 UTC (Fri) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] OK I should redefine good as is "more" intuitive. Linux has been going in leaps and bounds recently, especially to my knowledge Mandrake.As per the windows clutter by icons, that's rubbish. you can do the same in KDE or gnome. It depends on YOU, not windows. XP starts with 1 icon I think, the rubbish bin. Apps that you install will install shortcuts on your desktop, that can be dragged straight to the rubbish bin (see above). As per the submenus, I think in Mandrake if I want to change the kde colours, I have to go through I think 6 directories (Star, System, Configuration, Kde, Look and Feel, Icons). In XP, (Start, Control Panel, Desktop). So once again the argument was not valid. The taskbar in windows can be hidden and appear only when required (bringing the mouse to the edge of the screen it is hidden makes it reappear). This is equivalent to the 1 click kicker hiding button, without the click though. So again, argument is unsubstanciated. Finally, if you can use cygwin, you are not an average user, you are already into the power user, maybe programmer. Therefore, you're likely to feel more comfortable with command line because you have learned to use it. This is something that is unacceptable for beginners. However, virtual desktop is something that MS has failed to bring on (I think they brought it for a short while and then discarded it). Eye candy is something that is useful for the casual user. when you are really USING your desktop, you usually are unlikely to see much of the background or the icons, because you are absorbed in the programs that you use for work. Eyecandy is nice but hardly helps productivity. When discussing windows, stop thinking 3.1 or even 95, the world has moved on. When 95 was out, linux required you to know the geography of your HDD for you to be able to install it after all. So whilst I really want linux to be easier to use because I mainly run this, having an open and objective view from both sides, forgetting that one is better known because more people use it than the other, MS is still better at UI (hence, straightforward usability)
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 16:49 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] So basically your take on this is, that if you are a programmer or above-average user you can have no say in what constitutes a good UI? ;-)
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 15:48 UTC (Sat) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] I didn't say that.freedesktop.org is targetted at this kind of thing I believe. I think the community would learn lessons off MS once MS starts producing a relevant UI on linux. However, even if it has gone in leaps and bounds in the last two years, there is still insufficient control ("a la firefox" in my opinion) with the distros I have come across to qualify as yet decent for a beginner. Harmony is a tough thing to create within a community of thousands of projects. In time the community will manage, this is hopefully something that Novell can force onto Suxe for example. And yes, I think advanced programmers on their own get a skewed idea of what is the perfect UI, but this stems from the roots of linux anyway. Eric Lafoon is doing a good job at improving the Expectations of quanta for example. However, he is himself also too involved with the project at the moment to take a step back and focus on usability rather than features. My hope here is that once features are aplenty, usability will be the focus again...
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 5:35 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] > As per the submenus, I think in Mandrake if I want to change the kde colours,That's not something typical users do. Also Gnome is really simpler and more intuitive than KDE. In Gnome, you change the entire theme and not the colors because just changine the colors will often result in unreadable text somewhere. > The taskbar in windows can be hidden and appear only when required This is an enormous misfeature. (Google for Fitt's Law). It's complicated to compare Linux vs Windows UI but recent UI studies show that they are roughly equivelent for new computer users.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 5:37 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Crap... I'm meant to say the studies were between a Gnome based distro and Windows.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 23, 2004 17:19 UTC (Sun) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] Ok, take printing management.Mandrake: Star / System / Configuration / printing / Cups WWW admin Tools (which is hardly a beginner's UI) Windows: Start / Printing / Name of your printer This may be more to be expected from a beginner?
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 13:36 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] You really think, that You will still TRUST a company with M$ record?Great, let them pollute Linux!!! I wish M$ burned, the sooner, the better.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 15:55 UTC (Sat) by gkhw (guest, #11591) [Link] Honestly, MS being as "American" as they are, this is unlikely to happen for a while. As long as they suffer the Not Invented Here syndrome, etc..They can do this without polluting. However, as you hint, chances of this happening is as far as the moon. However, experiences from Novell or IBM may teach them a lesson, who knows...
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 19:09 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Come on, I don't trust them.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 4:02 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] the facts remain the same - usual tactics to strangle competition won't workI like to disagree here. How come have their tactics worked so fine so far then? Now that the EU is moving towards software patents, M$'s(and any big corporations') opportunities to strangle competition are even greater. It will be like US(sufficient to replace the expressions: mess, hell, nightmare come true, lawyers' paradise).
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 4:04 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Sorry, I forgot to add this link:http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 19:18 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > How come have their tactics worked so fine so far then?I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Their usual tactics is to buy the competitors or push them out of business by using various questionable methods. I don't remember seeing many Linux companies being threatened or extinguished that way (bar Lindows).
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 23, 2004 10:33 UTC (Sun) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] I guess, that that's exactly what I ment. For the "questionable methods",please reference the link, that I provided, above.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 23, 2004 21:47 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] The only reference to free software is Samba. AFAIK, that's a non-issue any more (at least not on networks I do). It is true that MS will attempt to do infinite number of such tricks in the future, but I don't see how that's related to competition with Linux companies in the context I was describing. Their little obfuscations, extensions etc. are usually reverse engineered around rather quickly.My point was that by shutting down one Linux company, they wouldn't squash the competition. They would only postpone it until the next company raises in its place. Proprietary software doesn't have that luxury - if the company goes bust, the codebase is usually lost and competition is eliminated entirely.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 21, 2004 11:41 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] They are worried about IBM, because IBM contrary to HP and SUN, has the power and the will to continue selling tremendous good servers with Linux or Unix, when the rest of the world is expexted to fall behind the DRM protected machines in Microsoft schemes...... Otherwise the argument is completly stupid, because Microsoft is not building any server hardware for the forseeanable futur, and in that department they could not even dream of competing with IBM.
IBM scaring the pants out of them Posted May 22, 2004 19:22 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Otherwise the argument is completly stupid, because Microsoft is not building any server hardware for the forseeanable futur, and in that department they could not even dream of competing with IBM.I wasn't talking about competing, especially not in hardware sales (unless MS pitch the Xbox against the pSeries :-). I was talking about the fact that IBM may be far less dependent on MS in the future. IBM is setting themselves up for the position where MS cannot pull the strings behind the curtains and have the last chuckle. My bet is that this is annoying Bill and Steve to no end. And if IBM pull it off, what's stopping others doing the same? It's a dangerous game IBM are playing and that's what's worrying MS.
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com) Posted May 21, 2004 4:26 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Well, this at least has the sound of something more intellegent than the usual, but it actually is the usual in more subtle words." If you went back 18 to 24 months ago, it was unclear what Linux would look like " Umm, no. If you went back maybe 70 months ago, this might have been the case, but administrators of networks running on backbones built of linux machines that haven't even been rebooted in 18 to 24 months probably have no such " It was thought of as free." Umm, no. It *is* free. "There's no question about who our biggest competitor is. It's IBM." Umm, no. Your biggest competitor is a public with open minds. If you
Dreams of Longhorn (News.com) Posted May 21, 2004 8:03 UTC (Fri) by alonso (subscriber, #2828) [Link] I think you have the point, linux isn't IBM or Novell or RH is a comunity. If you think patents wull be a problem you have to remember that if a company restrict the distribution of a GPL program due of patents of everything else you loose the rights to distribute the software. In other words IBM will loose the rights to distribute linux if enforce his patents on it :)Of course I'm not english ;)
|
|||||||||||