Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

Ex-Microsofter Rick Belluzzo Prefers Linux 380

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the taking-the-os-challenge dept.
keird writes "I'm sure you all remember Belluzzo being pushed out of Microsoft earlier this year. ComputerWorld has a short, but interesting interview with him where he talks about why his new employer, Quantum uses Linux in their appliances." From reading the interview, Belluzzo seems to be pretty amicable to whatever will get the job done, and in this case, it's Linux.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ex-Microsofter Rick Belluzzo Prefers Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Make a Change :-) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:16AM (#4880125)
    This makes for a bit of a change since a long time ago when he destroyed SGI by persuading them to drop MIPS and IRIX and move to Windows NT.
    • Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BigBir3d (454486)
      What he tries to accomplish is based on where he works.

      If he can only push a Microsoft product, then he will.

      If he can evaluate each job and use what they specifically require, then he will.

      No different than any of us. We do what we can when we can.
      • Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ReelOddeeo (115880)
        What he tries to accomplish is based on where he works. If he can only push a Microsoft product, then he will.

        Some of us actually have morals, ethics and values that don't change based on where we work.

        It is enough for me, in my business, to be successful. I don't have any requirement that everyone else must also fail in order to measure my success by.

        Let me put it differently with a hypothetical example...

        Today, suppose I work for a church/charatible organization/etc. so I do good deeds. Tomorrow I get a job working for the mob, so I kill people.

        What he tries to accomplish is based on where he works.

        What I try to accomplish, helping people, or killing them, is based on where I work at the moment.

        If he can only push a Microsoft product, then he will.

        If I can only kill people today, then I will. (Or destroy other businesses, destroy competition, remove opportunity from an entire industry, etc.)

        If someone can be so two-faced, then you probably shouldn't trust them. They probably have no genuine interest in your company if they work for you. Their interest changes at the whim of who they are whoring for at the moment.

        Maybe it isn't this way with Rick Belluzzo, but on the face of it, but it is one plausible interpretation of the facts. So does this guy really prefer Linux?
        • Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Some of us actually have morals

          This has nothing to do with morality - this is FUCKING TECHNOLOGY you nut. Technology is not a RELIGION. He's not two-faced because he didn't "stand up for what is Right" when he was at Microsoft. Guess what, when the director of IT comes to me and says MS only, I get pissed, but it's not IMMORAL for me to install Windows. The real reason I'm pissed is that we aren't choosing what's best, we're just blindly choosing Windows. Many times, Windows WOULD be the best solution - I just want to consently evaluate other solutions.

          I can't believe that you are so intellectually NULL that you compare buying Windows to Killing. You, Sir, need some serious HELP.
          • by frotty (586379)
            I generally TALK LIKE THIS when something is CRUSHING MY BALLS randomly.

            That aside,
            You're off base just a bit.

            Here comes the trusty ol' Nazi/Volkswagen story.

            The Volkswagen itself: neutral, technology has no 'moral ramification' itself, without use

            Being the scientist/engineer team who invented the Volkswagen for the Nazis: "EVIL." (by majoritiy's opinion, at least) They did it to help the Nazis win.

            Let's get specific:

            Windows itself: neutral, technology

            The team behind windows: Possibly EVIL. They support, to be polite, a questionable agenda.

            So, this guy might be proving to be a slut for his local master.

            We 'should' all quit our jobs if we really have problems with what are employer is doing, unless we think that the power & resources gained by working with something we don't like will fix the harm done by helping the possibly evil entity out.

            IE, it'd have been ok to have become a nazi and done things to HELP them if you eventually used that power & proximity to overthrow them.

            from the looks of it, this guy is just soft-shoeing whatever minstrel show fetches the most $$$$$$

            • by ghjm (8918) on Friday December 13, 2002 @04:39PM (#4883274) Homepage
              How do you talk when someone is crushing your balls in a deterministically ordered sequence?

              -Graham
            • Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:5, Informative)

              by Chris Johnson (580) on Friday December 13, 2002 @06:57PM (#4884094) Homepage Journal
              Actually, that would be Porsche :)

              What happened there was more complicated: Ferdinand Porsche had always been hot for a 'people's car', way before Hitler. He came up with the Volkswagen design for personal reasons, because it was the car he most wanted to build, the coolest thing he could think of.

              Hitler was hot to industrialize Germany- very few people owned cars, and he wanted to build roads, get lots of Germans into cars, basically modernize the country. This too was a personal reason- German industrialists did not always believe Hitler when he wanted 'cheap people's' this and that, but they learned the hard way.

              Porsche had to bid for the contract to be the one to build the 'people's car' and he did it by selling Hitler on the Volkswagen design with an amazing half-jargon half-layman spiel which basically convinced Hitler that the future VW was a brilliant, unorthodox, superior design (which it was, as they learned when trying to improve it later)

              Having secured Hitler's support, Porsche then totally ignored everything in politics and got back to his work- this would be the moral lapse, even though he did not actively support the Nazis. Things would happen, like Porsche getting a letter saying "The Fuehrer wishes the greatest German auto designer to become a German citizen" and shrugging and saying (translated) "Well, I suppose nothing can be done about it- see that this is taken care of" and ignoring politics again. Passive support and failing to resist in any way.

              Hitler never got any Volkswagens built for the German people- the plant was bombed and the economy collapsed. The VW plant fell into the hands of the British, whose opinion of the matter was, "this is a great car, these are great workers and designers who aren't responsible for the sins of their leaders, this plant belongs to the German people and we are here to see that it is returned to them, and flourishes". With their determined support, the first VWs started coming out in spite of terrible supply shortages, technical problems (like shattering torsion bars in the suspensions) were solved, and the story of the VW was underway no thanks to Hitler (it wasn't his idea, it was Porsche's, it just played into his populist tendencies)

              I have this very neat book, 'Small Wonder', about it all...

          • by ReelOddeeo (115880) on Friday December 13, 2002 @03:42PM (#4882838)
            compare buying Windows to Killing

            I did not compare Windows to Killing. I merely used a higher contrast example of what my entire point was about. Not having any beliefs in anything. Doing whatever is profitable at the moment.

            this is FUCKING TECHNOLOGY you nut
            Technology is not a RELIGION
            it's not IMMORAL for me to install Windows


            I'm not the one yelling and screaming.

            The facts about what Microsoft has done speak for themselves to anyone who has been around longer than the dot-com boom. We're talking about a company that has been convicted of criminal conduct and upheld on appeal. This is NOT about technology. This is about people and ethics.

            I have these conversations with a coworker of mine who defends Microsoft no matter how indefensible the particular point may be at the moment. Is there no limit to how people should conduct themselves in pursuit of profit? Is there no low too low? A company that will sign a contract that stipulates in writing that they will not alter certian api's, and then turn right around and violate the very letter (not just spirit) of that contract in order to kill Java.

            This is a company that blatently rips off disk compression technology and bundles it into DOS, and is later called on it. Settle or pay a fine. Either way it's still the cheapest technology they ever stole. In the end, a profitable venture, so it must be okay.

            You're right about one thing. This is not about technology. This is about people and their behavior. <insert silly name calling and insults here> That is the whole point of the thread beginning with the top level post. Finally, you said nothing that disputes my remarks about people, which was the entire substance of my post.

            In case the point is lost on you, I'll repeat it, but without charged examples such as killing. Some of us have ethics, morals and values. If I work for company XX, who makes product xx, and then promote xx as being the best solution, I would not then go work for YY who makes product yy which is a direct competitor of xx, and then trumpet yy as being the best. One or both of my statements concerning xx and yy must therefore be a lie. Black and white. Some of us see conduct in terms of right and wrong, not profit or less profit. This was the entirety of my point.

            An alternative hypothesis, but not one that seems warranted by the actual interview article, would be that a person became enlightened that xx was not the best and that yy was.
    • Not a change at all. If you read the article he clearly states, "I don't think Linux is going to be successful as a desktop replacement."
    • Here's a link [eet.com] from an old /. story about Belluzo's decision to move to NT. Here's the /. discussion [slashdot.org] on his resignation from SGI shortly thereafter.
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:17AM (#4880134) Homepage
    Wow, Linux is being used in a product that Windows isn't even targeted towards. I don't think that Microsoft cares too much if linux is used in these types of devices. Especially when they still own 95% of the desktop market.
    • by gazbo (517111) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:29AM (#4880230)
      Also, the bit that was cunningly not mentioned in the excerpt:
      I don't think Linux is going to be successful as a desktop replacement. But Linux is going to surround new appliances...
      Exactly what the more rational and less rabid of us have said all along. Linux has its place, which for most people is not the desktop.
      • Exactly what the more rational and less rabid of us have said all along. Linux has its place, which for most people is not the desktop.
        Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not rabid or irrational. But I still think linux will eventually take over, even on the desktop.

        Why? Because most end users are cheap. Imho they don't care what operating system they're using, as long as they can get it to do what they need: writing, finances, websurfing, etc. Free software is rapidly improving, and it'll soon be (if it isn't already) usable enough that even Aunt Betty will balk at paying hundreds of dollars extra for Windows and Office. Especially once she realizes that without the expense of these two fifty cent CDs, she can get a computer [walmart.com] that will do everything she needs for a measly couple of hundred bucks.

        Corporations looking to cut costs will lead the charge. But eventually all non-specialized software will be commoditized and general users will not pay big dollars for it. Imho.
        • by Twirlip of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:39PM (#4881255)
          Because most end users are cheap.

          This is a common misconception. If most end users were cheap, they'd build their own computers from parts instead of buying a Gateway or a Dell or a what-have-you.

          Most end users are impatient and lazy. (Not in the derogative sense; I, too, am impatient and lazy, and chances are you are too.) They run Windows or Mac OS for the same reason that they buy their computers pre-assembled: because they can get up and running faster and with less work.

          Linux is not easy to use (making it unappealing to the lazy), and what's worse it's not easy to learn (making it unappealing to the impatient). Giant changes would have to happen before Linux could become any of those things. The people who work on Linux have no motivation to make those giant changes. So I don't see it happening.

          I think there's one scenario in which Linux could become a viable desktop alternative. A large and profitable company could adopt Linux, base a business plan on it, and make the necessary changes to make it easy to use and easy to learn. The company would have to be large and profitable because Linux would require a great deal of work to get where it needs to be, and the company would have to be able to survive spending a fortune on Linux for a few years while they do what they need to do.

          There's one big thing, I think, that will prevent this from happening: the GPL. Any company that does any proprietary work on Linux will be forced to give its source code away to anybody who asks for it, making it impossible for that company to have a competitive edge in the marketplace. That takes the wind out of the old business plan.

          Of course, Apple already did exactly this. They just based their OS on FreeBSD instead of Linux. So the idea is sound; it's just that in GPL-land, there's no possibility of commercial motivation, which means no reason to invest the necessary time and work.

          Server operating systems, naturally, don't have to be easy to use or to learn at all. That's why companies like IBM and SGI are shipping big servers that are built from the ground up to run Linux: they only have to make a few changes to the OS to get it to do what their customers need, and their competitive advantage is the hardware, so releasing the source code of their OS is no big deal to them.
          • What accounts for the purchasing of systems from Dell or Gateway and the challenges of Linux on the desktop is that most end users are cheap and dumb. The "dumb" bit lets companies which provide services that do everything for you prosper.
            Most end users are impatient and lazy. (Not in the derogative sense; I, too, am impatient and lazy, and chances are you are too.) They run Windows or Mac OS for the same reason that they buy their computers pre-assembled: because they can get up and running faster and with less work.
            That is pretty much my point, "dumb", as I've used it, includes "lazy" and potentially includes "impatient", however I think the point that most end users don't want to learn something new and challenging needs to be made. Its just a fact, not a value judgement (well, not entirely).
          • I'm so tired of those prejudices.

            What changes dammit?

            The ONLY thing missing for desktop Linux is apps, especially games, but also some business apps.

            There is NOTHING wrong with KDE/Linux itself. A good distro like SuSE or Mandrake will be as easy to use as Windows and even a mediocre distro like RedHat made huge progress lately in that department. There is no desktop-centric setting left that can't be configured with the mouse. That you have to mangle with text files is about as likely as having to mangle the registry in Windows (that means: It can happen in some cases but normally shouldn't)

            Absolutely no big change is needed to Linux itself.

            What we need is better marketing, less "Linux is sooo hard" prejudices and especially more apps.

            In the end, Linux will go the same way as Windows NT, the home-desktop will be the last step, not the first.

          • Apple certainly could have used the Linux kernel and much of the GNU software rather than BSD. Which by the way, you are incorrect in stating that it was based on FreeBSD. Only with the newest darwin release (used by OS 10.2) is it actually based on FreeBSD code. Previously it was based on a much older branch of BSD and Apple brought in some features from FreeBSD.

            In any case, the point is that if Apple had used Linux and GNU then they would have to release their modifications to GNU utilities and Linux under the GPL rather than taking BSD licensed code, modifying it, and releasing the changes under the more restrictive APSL. They would still have been completely free to run their own windowserver and other proprietary software on top of Linux.

            What exactly is it about the GPL that seems to just scare the shit out of most commercial developers? Please quit spreading FUD about how we should all make our code "free in the truest sense of the word" under a BSD license. The arguments have been gone over several times, and the only thing I've ever gotten out of them is that as a free software developer I'm supposed to be a charity to everyone in the world. Sorry, that's not how it works for me-- I expect in return for showing you some of my code that you show me some of yours.

          • Sorry, I know this is way off topic... but I've gotta get this off my chest.

            Why do so many people hype the idea of Linux on the desktop? Linux has survived (and grown for nearly 12 years) simply by appealing to a niche market of computer enthusiats who didn't want to play ball w/ the big guys.

            In those (nearly) 12 years, non-enthusiasts have seen that they could put this particular product to use as a development/admin/server tool. Meanwhile, the enthusiasts have continued to tinker, modify and play w/ their "toy" (I do not use the term "toy" in a derogative sense!) to the point that it has become an alternative to computing standards (i.e. Windows/Mac OS).

            But, that does not mean that the burden of responsibility to change YOUR feelings of computer use falls into the hands of the Linux development community.

            If you don't like the way Windows works -- contact Microsoft. If you think that the Mac OS is too/not enough something or another -- contact Apple. Vote w/ your credit cards. Don't demand that Linux eradicate your unhappiness with whatever system you've chosen to use in the past. It 'aint gonna happen.

            Look, in the long term, 12 years is an awfully small amount of time for a hobby project to become what it is today: A very robust operating system w/ practical applications for software development, systems administration and networking solutions. It also happens to make a damn fine desktop for someone willing to put the time and energy into it. But it's completely unfair to expect the hard working development community (who rarely sees any compensation -- other than kudos from their colleagues) to create a perfect desktop environment for every technophobe on the planet.

            If you want the perfect Linux Desktop solution -- Take the time to learn to do it; that's the beauty of Linux. If you don't have the inclination to do that, then hire a (team of) Linux developers to design one for you. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show.

            Computers should be useful. Using computers should be fun. Linux is useful and fun. Where's the problem?

            ----
            • by jmorris42 (1458) <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Friday December 13, 2002 @04:17PM (#4883131)
              Because the smart ones among us know that if we can't get a critical mass of users in the next couple of years the game is over. Microsoft IS going to try closing the platform which means we won't be able to 'free ride' on the commodity hardware market which built up around DOS/Windows. If we don't have enough users willing to fork over hard currency to keep the Taiwainese and Chinese board makers going we are all hosed.
              • by UncleRage (515550)
                It's possible I haven't really considered the larger picture here. After reading your post -- and taking looking around (from a different view point), I suppose I can see what you're talking about.

                Of course, I also view it from a slightly different point anyhow (running YDL on PPC) -- so I don't often pay heavy attention to the angst of the x86 world. Maybe I should open my eyes once in awhile, eh?

                *Opens eyes for the first time*

                OMG! Bill Gates is a dick!

                ----
          • by Micah (278)
            *sigh* ... this is starting to get tiring.

            If most end users were cheap, they'd build their own computers from parts instead of buying a Gateway or a Dell or a what-have-you.

            Until you remember that Gateway/Dell get volume discounts and can build a box cheaper than you can.

            Linux is not easy to use (making it unappealing to the lazy), and what's worse it's not easy to learn (making it unappealing to the impatient). Giant changes would have to happen before Linux could become any of those things.

            Complete BS. Linux is *not* inherently more difficult or harder to learn than Windows. It's a bit different, but not harder. OK, *some* things are harder in most current distributions, but no "big change" needs to happen in Linux. Areas where Linux might still be harder are dropping like flies.

            The people who work on Linux have no motivation to make those giant changes. So I don't see it happening.

            What "giant changes"? And sure they do. Do you know how many people are involved in KDE, Gnome, Gnucash, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, various open source games? They all want to see Linux, or at least Open Source, succeed on the desktop, and are putting in tremendous effort.

            There's one big thing, I think, that will prevent this from happening: the GPL. Any company that does any proprietary work on Linux will be forced to give its source code away to anybody who asks for it, making it impossible for that company to have a competitive edge in the marketplace. That takes the wind out of the old business plan.

            You're assuming that they'll have to modify the kernel or other GPL software. That is unnecessary. You can make all sorts of changes to the Linux environment without doing that. And although I agree that companies putting effort into making Linux easier is useful, it is by no means the only way that Linux on the desktop could take off.

          • Actually, I'd say most users are cheap AND lazy. If they can get something as good as what they've got, for less, they'll go for it.

            I think there's one scenario in which Linux could become a viable desktop alternative.

            And why exactly does a big company have to do this? KDE and GNOME are building all we need to make an easy to use desktop. They are being helped by companies, and of course people like the guys at Xandros bring it all together and make it a cohesive whole, but the idea that after all that's been achieved, of course only a big powerful corp can make Linux workable on the desktop is ludicrous.

            Never forget we're in this mess in the first place because big and powerful corps don't throw money into the black whole that is OS development. Not even Apple - if they didn't sell hardware with huge margins, OS X wouldn't even exist, and they're finding it hard going as it is.

            There's one big thing, I think, that will prevent this from happening: the GPL

            How many times does this have to be thrashed out on slashdot? It's worse than the "X is slow" thing - look at Xandros: XFM is entirely proprietary, yet they do not violate the GPL, and they still give code back to the community. The idea that the GPL makes something uncommercialisable should have disappeared 5 years ago, but still it persists, despite the existence of companies who've been around for years and make money out of free software.

            Of course, Apple already did exactly this. They just based their OS on FreeBSD instead of Linux. So the idea is sound; it's just that in GPL-land, there's no possibility of commercial motivation, which means no reason to invest the necessary time and work.

            Please, this is just pure FUD. IBM, RedHat, SuSE, Xandros, Sun, TiVO, Sharp etc are not basing their products on Linux because their top execs are all high on crack.

            This whole post is just a total troll. Every point has counter examples. It rolls the Linux Desktop up with the BSD vs GPL, along with a healthy dollop of FUD as well.

      • Exactly what the more rational and less rabid of us have said all along. Linux has its place, which for most people is not the desktop.
        It depends on what desktop you mean. For many users, who need email, web browser, and simple office activity, Linux is very close to being an adequate desktop. It's installation is not simple, but if there were widely available Linux machines, that would not be a problem. The real issue is not the desktop, but MS licensing, Word and IE specific web sites.
        If the monopoly remedies are successful at forcing MS to stop the anticompetive behaviors, and I have little confidence they will now that shrub has nuetered the procedure, I give it another year or so before linux is acceptable on business desktop machines.
    • by ergo98 (9391) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:34AM (#4880253) Homepage Journal
      Wow, Linux is being used in a product that Windows isn't even targeted towards.

      Well that isn't entirely fair: Microsoft has made embedded [microsoft.com] operating systems for embedded and/or appliance markets for a while (at least four years), to mixed success. Personally I think they'll succeed eventually: Already PocketPC PDAs, a vision that was originally called bloated and overpowered, are absolutely storming the market (and the new ultra-low cost Dell ones pretty much ring the bell or doom for Palm and friend).
      • Companies will consider Microsoft embedded solutions when the cost isn't so high. I know a well known network company looked into using an embedded Microsoft OS and it would have increased the cost of the unit by ten times. I would imagine Linux would have been a bit cheaper than ten times but a proprietry or popular realtime core is still the best.

        If by embedded you don't mean realtime then Linux or Windows would do, but you would be able to create a much nicer custom interface in Linux. You would be able to customise the OS not just create an application that sits on top of Windows.
    • Wow, Linux is being used in a product that Windows isn't even targeted towards. I don't think that Microsoft cares too much if linux is used in these types of devices. Especially when they still own 95% of the desktop market.

      Oh, Microsoft cares [microsoft.com] all right. [microsoft.com] But they are fighting an uphill battle against free-and-open in that space. MS has lost a lot of ground to Linux there, is continuing to lose more, and there's really no hope of a comeback.

      Actually, those componentized versions of windows were very much the right idea, and Microsoft had an advantage there for a while. [emdebian.org]
    • It think you are onto something. The reason Linux is disapointing many, is because people say it is ready for home desktop use, and it is not as easy to install or configure as Windows is.

      Everyone is so desperate for a Windows substitute that doesn't BSOD and run email worms, that we are willing to praise even lackluster software that makes us pull out our teeth.
    • You are incorrect. IIRC, 35ish percent of all NAS devices are now "Windows Powered". MS has basically gone from 0-35% in this market in 2 years.

      ostiguy
      • This does fit with what I have seen. Most low-end NAS devices (the 1U rackmount units with four IDE drives attached to a Promise controller) now run a semi-embedded Windows 2000 rather than a stripped-down Linux-on-a-chip. The biggest advantage the older ones had, IMHO, was that the system-on-a-chip was still installed if you changed all the disks, cutting time off getting the system back up. Oh, yeah, and there really isn't a need to have Outlook Express installed on a NAS.
      • MS DOS had about half of the embedded market in the 90's.

        WinCE and Win-embedded are only getting a part of former DOS-users and almost no real new users, in sum they are losing marketshare.

    • Wrong, Microsoft cares very much because WinCE should become "the standard" on embedded devices and appliances.

      After the recent filings from Microsoft, we can savely say that every project Microsoft has started after 1990 is losing money: WinCE, MSN, XBox, even Mice and keyboards!

      Microsoft is losing everything they recently built up and is reduced to desktop-Windows/x86 and Office/Windows. Everything else is going down the drain.

  • Rocket Rick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sql*kitten (1359) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:18AM (#4880137)
    I'm sure you all remember Belluzzo being pushed out of Microsoft earlier this year. ComputerWorld has a short, but interesting interview with him where he talks about why his new employer, Quantum uses Linux in their appliances." From reading the interview, Belluzzo seems to be pretty amicable to whatever will get the job done, and in this case, it's Linux.

    "Rocket" Rick Belluzzo is also the man responsible for SGI's disastrous attempt to drop IRIX and MIPS in favour of x86 workstations running Windows NT. He also dropped the uber-groovy SGI cube logo for the lame "sgi". His "reward" for almost destroying a competitor was a cushy job at Microsoft. SGI have yet to recover and it's by no means certain that they will.

    Does Linux really need supporters like this?
    • by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:22AM (#4880170) Homepage
      The 'going forward'-ometer registers a worryingly high reading on this article. Don't employ this man.
    • Re:Rocket Rick (Score:2, Informative)

      by Gropo (445879)
      "Rocket" Rick Belluzzo is also the man responsible for SGI's disastrous attempt to drop IRIX and MIPS in favour of x86 workstations running Windows NT.
      I don't think the decision itself was a disaster, rather the execution. I was freelancing for a predominantly sgi-centric printshop service provider at the time those workstations were announced. The engineers that attended the 'big unveiling' recounted that the presentation seemed completely unpolished. Apparently sgi had a troupe of lemurs for a marketing department at that time (still?). The architecture was pretty exciting, and they were even capable of running IRIX as an opt-out... In other words a $4500 fully capable sgi workstation - incapable of selling themselves.
      • The architecture was pretty exciting, and they were even capable of running IRIX as an opt-out...

        I think you're thinking of the O2. The O2 was SGI's lowest-end MIPS workstation. It was always available for under $10,000 in the base configuration, and I think the lowest-end models dipped down toward $5,000.

        But the NT boxes were completely different. They had Intel processors in them, and could not run IRIX. But they had a really proprietary architecture, which meant they could only run a special built of NT 4.0. That basically put SGI in the service pack business, which was a major distraction for them. Their next-generation NT workstations were designed to run out-of-the-box Windows, and they worked very well. No better than anybody else's, of course, and for considerably more money. But I had one under my desk for about two years, and I never had a complaint about it.
    • "Rocket" Rick Belluzzo is also the man responsible for SGI's disastrous attempt to drop IRIX and MIPS in favour of x86 workstations running Windows NT. He also dropped the uber-groovy SGI cube logo for the lame "sgi". His "reward" for almost destroying a competitor was a cushy job at Microsoft.

      The dynamics of the corporate structure is such that one person cannot make major decisions without concensus or at least approval of the board of directors. One man can not bring down a company or make a decision without the approval of and participation of others.

    • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday December 13, 2002 @11:35AM (#4880735) Journal
      Rick started at HP and at point ordered 350K engines from canon. He then later went to canon and apologized to the workers who were being laid off. For that screw-up, HP promoted him to being in charge of HP' desktop computers, where he merged the unix desktop and desktop system together. He managed to kill the Unix desktop, while saying that he would build it up. When his division was headed down, he went to SGI, where he did his best to destroy irix and SGI. He left MS when their numbers are starting down (yes profits are up, but numbers are down). Now, he is at Quantum, where he has sold off half the company, and it was running Linux. MS is knocking on the door. Guess which road rick will go down? I predict that Quantum will be gone in about 2 years or less.
  • Big story... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NightRain (144349) <[ray] [at] [cyron.id.au]> on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:18AM (#4880143)
    Man works for MS uses Windows, moves to Quantum, now uses Linux! Film at 11!

    Sorry, but I just don't get the big deal. He worked for a company that made Windows. Of course he will use it. He then moves to a company that uses Linux for a lot of their operations, and now uses Linux. I mean, who'd of thought? :)

    Ray

    • by GoofyBoy (44399)

      It isn't a big deal. Just like if he worked at Apple he would advocate Macs. He has no "loyalties". He even implies this himself;

      "I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively."
      • "It isn't a big deal. Just like if he worked at Apple he would advocate Macs. He has no "loyalties"."

        Having no loyalties != switching loyalties to blend in.

        If he got your hypothetical job at Apple, I wager he'd stick with Linux if it still got the job done, switch to OS X if it did things better, or even work to get MS software ported if needed.

        He wants to use the best tool for the job, not go "Oh crap, better appease the natives...." everytime he enters a new environment.
        • If he got your hypothetical job at Apple, I wager he'd stick with Linux if it still got the job done, switch to OS X if it did things better, or even work to get MS software ported if needed.

          If he's working for Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat, or any other system vendor, he should use his employer's products when working whenever possible. If it doesn't work but should, then it's an incentive to fix the problem.

          If it SHOULDN'T work like the "competition", then it's not a bloody competitor, is it? ;)
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnknownBeetroot (633876) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:19AM (#4880151)
    ...from his picture [computerworld.com], that would appear to be because he's on the Happy Stuff.

    But seriously, he's a CEO. He couldn't care less what they use, as long as they pay him. he'll still use windows at home. Irony of the article? No, just practicality.
  • Who? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:20AM (#4880158) Homepage
    I'm sure you all remember Belluzzo being pushed out of Microsoft earlier this year.

    Er, no? Was there a Slashdot story on it? Who is this guy? I only know about Bill G and the monkey man.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)

      by tc (93768) on Friday December 13, 2002 @09:25PM (#4884844)
      I think that's pretty much the reason he got the boot from MS. According to some of my MS-employee buddies the guy was viewed as a non-entity by most staff. Sample conversation between two MS employees I know:

      "Rick Belluzzo's been fired"
      "Who?"
      "The company President"
      "I thought that was Balmer"
      "No, apparently it was this Belluzzo guy"
      "No shit? Who knew?"
  • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:22AM (#4880166) Homepage
    Methinks the Free Software Foundation should start switch ads ;)
  • MS Approach to Linux (Score:2, Interesting)

    by schaefms (633516)
    Interesting that the "company line" on Linux is to stand up and yell at their customers about it. I've dealt with some reasonable MS employees, but I haven't dropped the "L" bomb yet.
  • by Jacco de Leeuw (4646) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:23AM (#4880176) Homepage
    FYIV.

    ("Fuck you, I'm vested!" [cinepad.com])

  • by bplipschitz (265300) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:23AM (#4880178)
    "Here, we'll pay you a pornographic sum of money, and all you have to do is smile at the cameras, act CEO-like, and say you love Leenooks".

    Tough Job.
  • by burninginside (631942) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:24AM (#4880182)
    guy used to work at ms and now uses linux...



    i'm still waiting for the interesting part...
  • An Interesting Q&A (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TrollBridge (550878) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:24AM (#4880189) Homepage Journal
    "Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively."

    Notice Mr. Belluzzo didn't tack on "as long as it's open source" at the end of his answer. I think that is exactly the right position that business leaders should be taking when deciding what software to use. I think that many times, the more zealous OSS activists refuse to acknowledge that commercial, closed-source software can sometimes be the most appropriate solution.

    • closed-source software can sometimes be the most appropriate solution.


      Right up until the company goes out of business. Or decides that they need to increase the price by 2000%. Or decides that they don't want to license to you. Or calls the BSA in for a little "accounting"!


      Or, maybe, closed-source software can never be the most appropriate solution, if there's any alternative available.

      :w

      • How did I know you'd have .edu in your homepage link?
      • That's a pretty negative view.. the one thing about deploying software in a business... is that if it met your needs this year, chances are, it will meet those same needs five years from now. If the company does go out of business, or decides to hike the price, etc, etc.. you can plan a transition out of that software. Thing is, if it is more efficient to use a closed source solution than the open source ones available, the costs of the transition out of that closed source software to something else will probably end up being less than the total gain from using the open source. I am a firm believer that you should pick the right tool for the job, regardless of open or closed source.
      • by tshak (173364)
        Right up until the company goes out of business.

        Even during the .COM days it was generally trivial to select companies where this wasn't a problm. I'm not worried about IBM or Microsoft going out of business any time soon. This argument just isn't practical. Sun, well, that one I'm a little more worried about!

        Or decides that they need to increase the price by 2000%.Show me evidence that this is anywhere near common? Competition prevents this. Even with Microsoft's monopoly this doesn't happen.

        Or decides that they don't want to license to you. Again, this isn't practical. In my 6+ years this has never happened, nor in my Dad's 30+ years at Boeing (everything is proprietary, and many times from smaller niche software houses). I'm not disagreeing that it's not possible, but again, I doubt IBM's all of the suddon going to pull Websphere from under me, or that Windows 2000 will expire in an unreasonable amount of time. Plus, it's THEIR product, if they choose to screw me over by not licensing it (or writing a crappy license), then I go to the competition, and so do their customers.

        Or calls the BSA in for a little "accounting"!Although the BSA pisses me off, what pisses me off more is companies with no backbone to prevent the BSA from doing what they don't have the power to do. And again, practically speaking, if you aren't stealing software you won't have the BSA down your throat. Don't get me wrong, the BSA has BS as it's first to letters for a reason.

        You don't go out and buy any other product demanding full specifications of the innerworkings, why do you with non-trivial software? Plus, most of your arguments could be applied to vendors like Red Hat. Red Hat could pull the plug, and I'm SOL because A) some of the code is copyrighted to RH so I need a license for each desktop, B) I need RH's support, because Debian won't support me on RH's distro (and it's not trivial to convert when you have 100's of machines, trust me), C) RH could choose to increase it's price at any time - maybe right after I custom configured it and installed it on 100-200 desktops.
      • by Chelloveck (14643)
        Right up until the company goes out of business. Or decides that they need to increase the price by 2000%. Or decides that they don't want to license to you. Or calls the BSA in for a little "accounting"!

        Which are things you throw into the cost, benefit, and risk analysis when choosing your tools. And you know what? Sometimes closed-source commercial software still wins.

    • It depends on what you value. As a business, I would not value anything that left me stuck with a single vendor. If doing thing _a_ prevents me from ever having a different vendor without totally reworking my products, I wouldn't do it.

      Freedom is just as important for businesses as it is for people. They just usually call it something else, like "vendor independence" and "free market". The idea is the same, though.
    • I also read his previous interview (linked from the bottom of the article in question) and concluded that this guy is full of enthusiasm for whatever project he takes on, and for whatever product he needs to use to reach the target goals. Wouldn't matter what the goal or product is.

      Which isn't necessarily a reflection on whether he's actually any good at his job (I don't know anything about him beyond what I just read), but that's another discussion.

  • Try to go to Quantum [quantum.com] and see th e nice little error message you get. You'd figure for a company that is using Linux in their work, they'd get the web guys on the stick and fix that.
    • Heh, I didn't even get an error message in Konqueror. If I'd use Netscape I would have been redirected to http://www.quantum.com/browser_sitemap_page.html
      With IE I would have gone to http://www.quantum.com/AM/default.htm (notice the .htm :-) )
      Both pages render fine in Konqueror though...
    • Because some moron made the initial page javascript-ONLY. I have js turned off (like any sensible person :) so all I got was a blank page (not even an error message).

      Tho I did extract http://www.quantum.com/browser_sitemap_page.html from the docsource, which seems to function in a more-useful fashion.

  • by tomk (20364) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:27AM (#4880212) Homepage
    In the interview he states:

    Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change.

    I'd say it's pretty likely that MS will use a carrot-and-stick approach to force him onto Windows. Quantum is looking for a big deal with MS and with a high-profile ex-microsoftie singing the praises of the competition, I'll bet there's a threat that the deal will fall through: that's the stick. MS will probably also offer Quantum a much-discounted price on embedded Windows NT: that's the carrot.

    In the end, Quantum will do whatever they need to do to help their bottom line. (not that I blame them.) If the deal with MS is worth more than the cost of Windows licenses, they'll be on Windows before you know it.
    • I'd say it's pretty likely that MS will use a carrot-and-stick approach to force him onto Windows.

      First of all, aside from the OEM deals which forced people to include Windows (this of course has been remedied by the DOJ), people are not forced to use Windows. Rick is a big boy, and makes decisions for himself. MS is not the mob that people make them out to be here. First and formost, he's a businessman. He's looking for the best solution for his business, not a religion. If he feels that Linux is best, it's not because of a bunch of zealots or RMS, it's because he feels it's the best technology. If he see's that MS can provide them with a better technology, it's not because he would have gotten a free yacht - trust me, he has enough of those anyway.
  • I was going to say, isn't this the guy who used to be CEO of SGI and sold out all kinds of IP to M$ and moved the company to NT shit a few years back? We all know the financial problems that surfaced for a once great company after that. I get the feeling that this guy would sell his own soul for a few extra bucks, much like Bill Gates has.
  • Malda! (Score:3, Funny)

    by HaloZero (610207) <protodeka&gmail,com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:37AM (#4880267) Homepage
    Aren't you supposed to be on your honeymoon? GET OFF THE COMPUTER, MAN! :-P
  • Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rgraham (199829) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:45AM (#4880311) Homepage
    From reading the interview, Belluzzo seems to be pretty amicable to whatever will get the job done, and in this case, it's Linux.

    Yes, use what will get the job done. People (pro-MS/anti-Linux, anti-MS/pro-MS, repeat for Solaris, Mac, BSD...) get so blinded by their allegence to one type of technology they don't realize or refuse to accept that there might be something better out there for a given use. Sitting on my desk right now I have machines running Win2k, OSX and RedHat 7.1 all of which I use for different tasks. Could I use just one OS for all my tasks? Sure, but I perfer to use what works best in a given situation.
    • Kinda like those who have to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon no matter what it is. Sometimes you're better off to stick with what you already know works.

      In my stable, I've got M$DOS/DRDOS/Win9*/WinME/WinXP/Mandrake7.2, and programs in use dating from 1983 to last week. Whatever works for what I want at the moment.

    • Yes, use what will get the job done.

      No, don't just use what will get the job done. That's engineering at its most primitive, but you can do better. What about the next job, that may be similar? Will it get that job done easily? Is it maintainable? What about when it stops getting the job done in a couple years, after you're gone? Can it be fixed? What if the "job" changes? Deciding whether or not these are issues, and whether or not a solution addresses these issues, is something engineers should think about.

      All that is still just things related to the specific computational task you expect the solution to perform. There are tradeoffs beyond that space that, despite being an engineer, are valid to consider.

      Other questions, like is the ability for the solution to get the job done dependent on one company? What are the costs of dealing with that company? Will I be locked in to using that one company's products? If that company stops supporting my solution, what are my options?

      I'm not saying you're wrong that people should consider more than one solution, and use what is appropriate. I'm just arguing that "getting the job done" is not the only thing that should be considered, and that as a result what appears to be blind allegience may not be.

      For example, Venezuela's government is considering more than just "getting the job done" when they decide to use Open Source. The mandate to use it across government is based on those non-technical aspects of their situation that can only be satisfied by open products. It's not blind allegience, it's pragmatism -- the same engineering tradeoffs made in our jobs every day -- based on more than just technical aspects.

      Or for myself, I simply value Free in my software where I will take a Free solution over non- even if the Free doesn't -technically- perform as well.

      Again, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, that each situation may be different and the decision should be made not on what tech you like, but on what is best. I'm just saying "best" can be based on more complex things which seemingly drive out other solutions as if they are not considered.
  • It gets rather irritating to see headlines every day about a couple of people converting. Must every little action in the Linux community be treated as a major milestone?

    I like linux, but honestly it is not the best OS in existence. There is no perfect OS in this world, although some would have you believe different.

    Rather then always point out the same ridiculous arguments that Linux is better, Windows sux, open-source is better then closed source, why not just accept that people use what they need to get the job done? Yes both OS's can do the same stuff, but I can do certain things 10x faster in Windows then linux, and vice versa.

    Announcing every day that people some people are converting really seems pointless when almost all the desktops come with Windows. Consider this, if you wait till the end of the month and announced 10,000 people converted to linux, Microsoft could do the same and say that since there were 1,000,000 desktops sold in the month, 1,000,000 people chose Windows. My point of all this.

    WHO CARES! Let people chose on their own, don't advertise every single person, because the general population doesn't give care.
    • You are very right, but if I'd do storage solutions, I could see a certain advantage of an os supporting 30 different filesystems out of the box, including some very proofen ones, and a shitload of ways serving files, compared to anything MS has to offer.

      Therefore I'd say that indeed linux is better for quantum's applications.
    • There is no perfect OS in this world, although some would have you believe different.

      At this years UK Oracle Users Group conference [ukoug2002.org] in one of the Q&A sessions the panel were asked which operating system they felt best for running Oracle on. The most popular answer was VMS with Tru-64 a close second for clustered systems.

      I like Linux. I run SuSe 8.1 professional at work, I have to use Windows 2000 as well due to corporate stuff (although pretty much everything I do could also be done just as well if not better from the Linux box - everything could be done on Linux if Samba would work properly, and be easily configurable, and if our ITServices section would either allow HTTP access to the Lotus Domino servers or replace Domino with something like Oracle Collaberation Suite). We've also rolled it out to provide corporate DNS services through BIND 9 (a requirement for MAD but the M$ implementation of BIND 9 didn't work).

      Stephen

  • "We have determined that your Web browser and/or computer's operating system may not support the navigation system of Quantum.com. We recommend that you either upgrade your Web browser to the most recent version or use our site map to browse our site."

    That's Moz1.2 folks.

    sigh...
    • That's Moz1.2 folks.

      What, you haven't updated to 1.2.1 yet? ;-)

    • I just sent 'em this (first address is the webmaster, the next two are the listed toplevel corporate contacts):

      To: online@quantum.com
      CC: brad.cohen@quantum.com, leigh.nixon@quantum.com

      You might be interested to know that your base page at http://www.quantum.com/ displays BLANK to anyone who does not have javascript enabled (which is about 30% of all users, including some behind corp firewalls that strip js like it or not); in some browsers, even with js enabled, all they get is an error message.

      I had to dig http://www.quantum.com/browser_sitemap_page.html out of the docsource to reach a useful page.

      To be blunt, js should NEVER be used for required navigation -- it shuts out too many users. For a company that's trying to change its basic direction in a difficult market, this does not strike me as a productive approach.

  • Microsoft's Style (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mephie (582671) on Friday December 13, 2002 @11:01AM (#4880420) Homepage
    If you're familiar with Microsoft's culture, my style is very different from Microsoft's style... I'm less confrontational. I'm more win-win, working with people, working with partners. People outside the company liked working with me.

    How's that for a candid look inside MS's culture? The guy likes to work with people, likes to talk to people and doesn't explode in an irrational fit when someone says "Linux." No wonder he didn't fit in.

  • by hdparm (575302)
    If you really are a proponent of 'the best tool for the job' dogma, you would want to sort out your web site [netcraft.com] (isn't that a tool?), so it doesn't ask me to upgrade the latest version of the most advanced web browser. Ugrade to what - IE?
  • by one9nine (526521) on Friday December 13, 2002 @11:15AM (#4880524) Journal

    "I'm Rick Belluzzo and I'm the former president and chief operating officer of Microsoft Corp."

    www.linux.com/switch
  • Visiting www.quantum.com currently gives me:
    [Close Window]

    We have determined that your Web browser and/or computer's operating system may not support the navigation system of Quantum.com. We recommend that you either upgrade your Web browser to the most recent version or use our site map to browse our site.

    Thank you,

    --- The Quantum Web Team ---
    If that's Quantum's support of alternatives to Microsoft I'm severely disappointed.
  • *sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)

    by John_Renne (176151)
    All too much these discussions become one big linux-commercial (or even some kind of holy war between Microsoft and GNU/Linux users). I guess the man is right when he says use the right tool for the right job. If the GNU/Linux OS on one point will satisfy your needs better than a Microsoft OS use is. On the other hand if a Microsoft OS fullfils your needs, use it too

    Why can't we all just get along?
  • If I worked for Ford and drove a Ford, then Ford fired me what do you think I'd be driving?
  • I was working for Microsoft and I made a ton of money. It was good money but then I realized I could make even more money by working for Quantum. So now I work here. I think they use Linux here. I had a rough discussion with Steve Balmer before leaving. ... bummer....

    I am Rick Belluzzo and I am the former chief operating officer of Microsoft.
  • by marian (127443) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:09PM (#4881536)

    This is the same guy who became CEO of SGI and was in negotiations with MS almost the entire time he was there, then gave no notice to SGI when he quit.

    This is the same guy who supposedly told the SGI board of directors that "It's too hard to be CEO of SGI" after running the company into the ground in an amazingly short period of time.

    This is the same guy who "helped" SGI lose a significant part of their already niche market by forcing the company to switch platforms away from what they did best.

    I wonder how much MS is paying him for what he's doing now? But I'm not bitter.


  • From the interview, when asked how his style, while at Microsoft, was different from others:

    People outside the company liked working with me. For example, if someone raised the subject of Linux, I didn't jump up and scream. I said, "Talk to me about why you like Linux, and let's talk through this."

    This is telling. IMO, if 'linux' is a scream-inducing word at Microsoft, then the company must be really scared. After all, screaming is an irrational, emotional response that doesn't lend itself to effective problem-solving.

    • Actually, this is more of a glimpse into why Belluzzo is a more adaptable businessman than anyone at Microsoft, apparently. It seems he has the capacity to negotiate and build relationships. That's valuable, and it also seems like Microsoft thoroughly lack this quality.

      It's like, if you don't do what Microsoft wants, on some level they will throw a fit- their basic response is screaming and ranting like a two-year old. They are not in the slightest bit interested about why you might want something non-Microsoft- not on an emotional level- their only real interest is in making you behave according to what they want, and you are to succeed and thrive on THEIR terms and in the way they expect. This is limiting.

      Belluzzo seems more inclined to be inquisitive- more likely to figure out what a customer's real terms are. That does not mean that he has more clout or power than Microsoft, because Microsoft's approach is geared to a straight power struggle in which they can generally win by sheer force. Belluzzo is more likely to win people's loyalty, and build relationships.

      It's rather telling that the qualities of building loyalty and relationships are sorely devalued in modern-day corporate capitalism: in fact, the way things work today, Belluzzo's skills are 'worthless'. Yet at the same time this same value system is producing a self-destructive downward spiral of reduced functionality (see the thread on worsening consumer electronics!) which is unstoppable under the corporate capitalist 'rules', and to a point will continue to be rewarded just as, to a point, the dot-com excess was rewarded.

      Belluzzo apparently adheres to an older school- one that has difficulty competing in the winner-take-everything corporate capitalist arena, but which has hidden advantages.

      Basically, this is the guy who winds up with all your customers- when you push the profit motive too far and slip up. You can go corporate Darwinist and produce junk and rig the market so there's no choice and get yourself in an IBM-like position where you're the only option, but all this really does is starve potential competitors of the ability to thrive with largish marketshares. Instead they become like Apple, thriving with a splinter. When you slip up, or your contempt for your customers becomes too great, guys like Belluzzo are there building loyalties and relationships and they are positioned to capitalize on your mistakes.

      The next guy who comes around leveraging the market and jumping up and down on tables screaming when he doesn't get his way- that guy might well grab those customers away from Belluzzo again. But not for long- only until he too screws up.

  • suure. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kguilber (586327)
    Yet Quantum's site launches a popup window to tell Mozilla users their browser may be incompatible. If they are going to use Linux, shouldn't they support the popular Linux browser?
  • by Outland Traveller (12138) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:10PM (#4882074)
    I just looked at a Quantum Guardian 4400 NAS device recently.

    It's a 1U rackmount system with four IDE drives, a custom motherboard that sports a 1Ghz PIII and two onboard gigabit ethernet controllers, usb, a serial port, and two onboard promise IDE controllers.

    The NAS boots linux (a 2.4.18 variant) off of some kind of flash chip and then uses linux's software raid and LVM to manage the drives. The drives are formatted using the XFS filesystem

    You use a small self-contained java application to initially set the IP address, and thereafter you can use a web browser to administer it. It has features up the ying-yang, including various backup options, automated updates, failover, load balancing, and synchronizing with peer NAS devices. It supports a full suite of filesharing protocols and has quota support, access control, etc.

    You can even enable an SSHD server and log in, although I haven't been able to find the root password yet. I don't know if quantum will provide it willingly or if you will have to aquire it yourself.

    I benchmarked it's NFS performance against similar configurations we've built in house and it is well optimized for latency and bandwidth in the ranges allowed by gigabit ethernet. In particular there were no lengthy pauses that we sometimes see on ext3-based systems.

    I was impressed with how well they were able to polish the box and make it appear that so many different, complex filesharing subsystems and features were seemlessly integrated.
  • by Alex Belits (437) on Friday December 13, 2002 @09:19PM (#4884823) Homepage
    Rick Belluzzo at different time was a head, and had destroyed Silicon Graphics/SGI and HP. Then he went to Microsoft, did nothing of value but was paid a giant amount of money as a "loan" that was promptly "forgiven", and Rick himself was gently kicked out when the "loan" story became widely publicized.

    Both HP and SGI were Microsoft's major indirect competitors -- they were producing large servers along with Sun and IBM, and now neither HP nor SGI have a working servers division, their native architectures are abandoned, their servers are not anymore significant players anywhere. SGI also was a direct competitor to Microsoft in workstation business, now workstations are no longer produced, after a major fiasco with an attempt to produce a Windows-based workstation using SGI technology. Also I am not sure what role Rick Belluzzo played with selling SGI patents and software to Microsoft that is now being used to prevent the development of OpenGL, and leave Microsoft at the controls of pretty much everything 3D.

    All this looks like he either was Microsoft's puppet from the very beginning, or that he is clueless moron who can't make a single business decision without being influenced by Microsoft. Since at Microsoft he did precisely nothing, "loan" looks suspiciously like a payoff for this shining example of service that he did for Microsoft while being a trojan horse in other companies.

    I have no idea what mentally deficient people can place him into a CEO position anywhere -- and I should better steer away from anything that Quantum will produce under the management of this crook.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...