Ex-Microsofter Rick Belluzzo Prefers Linux 380
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.
Make a Change :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
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 $$$$$$
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:4, Funny)
-Graham
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:2)
Re:Make a Change :-) (Score:3, Informative)
First Intelligent Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Yet another person who fails to understand the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why oh why does this idea continue? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
----
Re:Why oh why does this idea continue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Point taken. (Score:3, Funny)
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!
----
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:You're mistaken. (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, Dell's PDAs just came out and lowered the bar to even or lower than Palms (for a much, much more feature rich system). Secondly, your numbers are a tad out of date (not really that surprizing). Here [pcworld.com] we can see that PocketPC currently has 30% of all sales (the "market", if you will), versus compared to 48% for Palm. A tad different from your numbers. This was before Dell virtually halved the price of a PocketPC PDA.
Secondly, the "bloated and more expensive" is an outdated argument as well. Firstly something like the Toshiba e310 or e740 represent among the smallest PDAs available, yet they offer tremendous power. Dell's new PDAs, starting at $199, offer incredible value. And what's with the "proprietary" nonsense, Palm fanboy? And Palm ISN'T? Oh, right, proprietary=Microsoft in Slashdot speak.
Re:First Intelligent Post (doubtful) (Score:2)
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]
Re:First Intelligent Post (doubtful) (Score:2)
If I could get away with as much prejury as Microsoft, I'd be able to do all sorts of fun stuff.
"I accuse you of robbing the bank!"
"It's impossible for me to have robbed the bank!"
"Oh. Very well. Here's a slap on the wrist(With a healing rod) and a few bucks for your troubles."
Re:First Intelligent Post (doubtful) (Score:2)
www.litepc.net is the evidence.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
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.
Re:First Intelligent Post (Score:2)
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)
"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?
Re:Rocket Rick (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rocket Rick (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rocket Rick (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Rocket Rick (Score:2)
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.
Re:Rocket Rick (Score:4, Informative)
Dave
Not far enought back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rocket Rick (slightly offtopic) (Score:2)
In those days, and somewhat before, SGI already had a big chunk of the Internet server market. Not for small sites, or for providers who host small sites, but for giant sites like Travelocity. As far as I know, Travelocity still runs on IRIX.
The NT thing was an attempt to get into the broader desktop workstation market. SGI saw which way the wind was blowing, but they reacted the wrong way. They sold complete PCs-- clunky, overpriced, and incompatible. That business model completely failed for SGI, just as it failed for Intergraph a couple of years later. (And it then failed for SGI again when they bought Intergraph's workstation business. What goes around comes around, I guess.)
It's a shame that SGI couldn't have figured out a way to put Infinite Reality on a PCI card-- and sell it for $5,000-- in 1997. They might have owned the professional workstation graphics market, and maybe even the low-end gamer market, by now. Instead, though, they got the idea in their heads that system bandwidth was more important on a PC than interactive graphics performance. Which just turned out not to be true.
Ironically, SGI now has the ability to put Infinite Reality-class graphics on a PCI card. The Fuel uses V12 graphics (which are comparable to IR in a lot of ways) on a modified PCI bus. Unfortunately, the world has moved on, and it's too late.
Big story... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Agree and with a quote (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Agree and with a quote (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Agree and with a quote (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
"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?"
Where are the switch ads? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where are the switch ads? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the switch ads? (Score:2)
Male Ellen Feiss lookalikes...
"One night, I was writing a kernel module, when all of a sudden my computer went 'lpt1 on fire! lpt1 on fire! lpt1 on fire!', and the whole module just disappeared... it was, like... a bummer."
MS Approach to Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
This is probably Rick's way of saying.... (Score:5, Funny)
("Fuck you, I'm vested!" [cinepad.com])
I'd be pretty amicable too. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Tough Job.
ok and this is a big deal because of why? (Score:3, Interesting)
i'm still waiting for the interesting part...
An Interesting Q&A (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:2)
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:3, Insightful)
Even during the
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.
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:2)
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.
Re:An Interesting Q&A (Score:2)
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.
Well, he might like Linux, not their web team (Score:2)
Re:Well, he might like Linux, not their web team (Score:2)
Both pages render fine in Konqueror though...
Re:Well, he might like Linux, not their web team (Score:2)
Tho I did extract http://www.quantum.com/browser_sitemap_page.html from the docsource, which seems to function in a more-useful fashion.
Not on Linux for long (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not on Linux for long (Score:2)
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.
low life... (Score:2, Insightful)
Malda! (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
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.
There's always more to it than "getting it done" (Score:2)
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.
Stop with this stupid milestones! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Stop with this stupid milestones! (Score:2)
Therefore I'd say that indeed linux is better for quantum's applications.
Re:Stop with this stupid milestones! (Score:2)
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
So Much for Openness.. (Score:2, Funny)
That's Moz1.2 folks.
sigh...
Re:So Much for Openness.. (Score:2)
What, you haven't updated to 1.2.1 yet? ;-)
Re:So Much for Openness.. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Nah... (Score:2)
Does this mean we will see commercials like this? (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm Rick Belluzzo and I'm the former president and chief operating officer of Microsoft Corp."
www.linux.com/switch
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; (Score:2, Interesting)
*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't we all just get along?
This is news? (Score:2)
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
It was a good paper... (Score:2, Funny)
I am Rick Belluzzo and I am the former chief operating officer of Microsoft.
Is he already in negotiations for his next job? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Linux: scream-inducing at Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Linux: scream-inducing at Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Some more info about Quantum (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Rick Belluzzo, the companies assassin (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:MSNBC has it too (Score:2, Informative)
Re:He doesn't "prefer" it at all... (Score:2)
Re:OT: Signal to Noise Ratio = ~0 (Score:2)
Re:That's GNU/Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
It's pretty likely that since they're working on embedded systems, that they don't include any of the GNU tools. So Linux (the kernel) is the right thing to say.
Re:Actually thats not what he said (Score:2)
"Q:Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? A:I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux because it's free; it has a good modular design; you can modify it to meet your needs. There is nothing else that can meet our needs like that.
Q:Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? A:If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change. Our customers, by and large, don't really care what the operating system is. That's what's different about an appliance -- the customer really doesn't care what the components are."
It doesn't say he prefers Linux or thinks it is inherently a better solution; it says they're using Linux right now for certain (very valid) reasons and nothing else has those advantages, but if a better idea or alternative shows up from Microsoft they could change. Which is exactly how he should act: technology-agnostic.
My point wasn't that he doesn't think Linux is a good solution, but that Linux-ites want to hear how great Linux is and how it is much better than Windows. So this rather mundane piece gets spun to make it seem more like he's a Linux advocate/convert.
Good points in your last paragraph, and I agree -- it is important to remind people that Linux is a good solution.
-Thomas