Bill Gates On Linux 1194
King-of-darkness writes "USA Today had an interview with Bill Gates on june the 30th. Gates seems to be considering Linux as a passing thru competition just like OS/2., and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies."
Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Does this means I can actually ignore the article and not feel guilty when I post about it ?
Great! That's a first...
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
A troll. Literally. See page 120 in the 3E Monster Manual.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
As great of a quote as this is to bash on Bill.. it is simply not true, but is in fact an urban legend of sorts that has been widely circulated on the internet.
Here [usnews.com] is an interview with him clarifying the fact.
There is also a good interview [nybooks.com] in the New York Review of Books that also attempts to shed a better light on the matter.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Back to surfing the web with WinME, "the greatest user os ever built".
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft didn't spec the IBM PC, and IBM didn't spec MS-DOS.
Furthermore, since MS-DOS didn't provide a memory allocator, it's stupid to say that MS-DOS can't address non-contiguous memory.
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Although the rest of your comment is accurate, I wanted to point out that the number of bits the processor is capable of wasn't the problem. In fact, to the external world, the 8088 processor only handled 8 bits, although internally it processed data in 16 bit chunks. The important fact was the number of address lines. There were 20, but due to the way the system was implemented, the upper four were rendered unavailable. I think someone else pointed out that there were other 8088-based systems that had 900+KB of memory available.
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
For the record, the 8088 had an 8-bit bus, 16-bit registers, and 20-bits of address space. The 8088 is to the 8086 as the 80386SX was to the 80386DX, and few people claim that the 80386SX was a 16-bit chip, otherwise we'd be claiming that current consumer CPUs are anywhere from 64-bit to 512-bit.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive, and
available freely - but only 5 percent of the people would use it."
The car would have to be assembled at the home. There would be a steering wheel which is only used to navigate the car some of the time. There would be 47 pedals that each respond to varying levels of pressure. The manual would contain no illustrations and only cover half the functionality. A passenger seat is available to add to the Linux car, but the installation procedure requires new tools that you'll have to research how to use. The headlights and blinkers work, but the windshield wipers are still in development. (Nobody thought to copy that functionality until MS did it 4 years ago.) The Linux Community would bash MS for their wiper addition, claiming that one of their modes work only intermittently. However they'll cheer on the Linux team when they finally figure out how to copy that function they thought was useless and would make the users stupider. You'll be able to get a moon roof for free, but once you install it you'll find that you have to replace a component in the engine because suddenly the tires won't turn anymore. There's no automatic transmission, only manual, and it's got 19 gears plus 3 seperate modes.
Despite the well known fact that consumers want easy to use products that do what they need them to without much fuss, the Linux Community will act stunned and surprised at every turn that only the few people with the interest and the time will want anything to do with this car. Meanwhile, the Microsoft car still sells quite well and people drive quite happily with it. They've even got a large selection of games to play.
Re:Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying that Bill did say that; thing is, *him denying* that he said it doesn't make that fact, either.
I wonder if the real truth will ever come out. When I went to college in the mid80s I remember hearing that 640k joke quite often; and this was before the real media hype surrounding Gates and MS started. So...I wonder.
SB
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
linux had had about the same lifespan (1988-1994 = 6 years), but is still strongly growing and showing some ballz, and the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).
not to mention that MS basically partered with IBM on OS/2, then back-stabbed them while secretly working on a competeting OS (windows).
Those who don't learn history (or choose to ignore it) are bound to repeat it, Bill.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you remember the "Team OS/2" astroturfing? The Linux community doesn't even need to do stuff like that. It's truly grassroots, even as it's attracted the help of the big names, including OS/2's father, IBM.
The difference with IBM and OS/2 is that they were in an already weakened position when OS/2 was around. The PS/2 line was one of the biggest flops of all-time for IBM, and they were simultaneously trying to sell Windows-based machines and still push OS/2 as their main OS. They were too scattered with that, along with the big divorce lawsuit with Microsoft over their Joint Development Agreement. On top of all that, this is when Microsoft was insisting on per processor license agreements, a practice which got them hand-slapped by the FTC and later the Justice Department.
Linux, on the other hand, is relatively unencumbered by all that baggage, with the noteable exception of the SCO lawsuit, which at this point, has no direct bearing over Linux itself, just IBM, and I don't think they're really sweating it any, despite what Darl McBride would have you think.
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a member of Team OS/2 and coincidentally an IBM contractor. A lot of us (Teamers) and a few (About 4 IIRC) (real) IBMers went to the '95 COMDEX on our own dime and our own time to do the grassroots advocacy there. All IBM provided was some OS/2 install CDs and some exhibitor passes to let us get into the show before the doors opened. Oh yeah, and some really gay pink OS/2 shirts...
The astroturfing that year, as I recall, came from Microsoft. They brought a bunch of their own employees to try to counter the efforts of Team OS/2 and make it look like they had a grassroots group, too. We saw about a quarter of the number of "Team Microsoft" on the floor and someone suggested that they be waylaid and left duct-taped in a booth back in the skid row... Oh wait, that was me...
Anyway, Team OS/2 was not an astroturfing effort. The Team's relationship to IBM was always an uncomfortable one and many of the teamers inside the company and out have since moved to Linux. Linux already has far more momentum than OS/2 did. It runs on more platforms (Including the IBM mainframes that OS/2 was SUPPOSED to be ported to,) enjoys the support of more big companies and offers a platform that can not be killed by a single company.
Moreover, Bill Gates knows this. He didn't get to be the world's richest man by chance or luck alone. He didn't technically lie in his first statement; no doubt Linux is no different from OS/2 in his view in that he has to find a way to kill it as quickly as possible. Just as he did with OS/2 by providing discounts on his software PC resellers (including IBM's PCCO) who didn't offer an OS/2 pre-install option. OS/2's installation process was one of its weak points, and Microsoft made sure that every potential user of the operating system would go through it.
Microsoft's only open methods of attack against Linux are legal and in marketing. SCO's threat to sue every Linux user on the planet has already caused several companies that I know about to back away from the operating system. Expect to see more legal attacks from Microsoft or their minions and possible lobbying in Congress to make the OSS method of application development illegal. I expect a huge marketing campaign attacking the credibility of Linux as well. Don't put anything past them, they're protecting their monopoly here. You don't stay the world's richest man by luck or chance either.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
software definition of dead (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows. this is interesting, it ets 'new users' but that means the same old users buying upgrades.
It is moving into new markets, but slowly because it is not designed well for low level usage.
I almost wnat to use the term 'undead'.
Unix is dying. No not a troll. There are fewer users every year, and not a lot of new markets, because in has already penetrated all markets.
Mostly being killed by Linux.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples and Oranges. Microsoft has great marketing skills but no idea what they are talking about. It shows in this interview with Bill. OS/2 was never this popular. Not only IBM but many other companies are using Linux. Hell, even Oracle has announced Linux is their primary development platform. OS/2 never had that from anyone.
How many OS/2 web servers have you guys been hitting lately btw? OS/2 database servers in use? Sure banks use OS/2.. how many banks out there compared to # of other businesses in the world?
See my issue with Bill's comments? Same ol' FUD. Life is good
Re:But... I remember OS/2 and I worked for a bank (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't even really competing with MS, because the people who used apps on os/2 ran them in windows (which was conveniently bundled with it out of the box)
I fail to see mr. Gate's analogy here.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux truly runs the gambit of support from zilch (but completely free) to 24x7 support for mission-critical applications. This is great when you have development and test environments where you don't want to pay licensing/support for something that customers will never see. You're lowering overhead which nowadays is very important
On the technical side, being able to modify Linux means that it can run in a number of environments from the desktop/workstation (where a larger, less efficient kernel that has more stuff compiled into it doesn't matter) to a server (where stability and speed are more important) to very small devices (where a small memory footprint is important).
If you're talking stability, security, and speed and other *nix features/functions, then yeah, Linux is not a very compelling product. But merely copying *nix isn't what made Linux popular in the first place!
I liked this part (Score:5, Funny)
USA TODAY: Nobody used OS/2.
Re:I liked this part (Score:4, Informative)
I briefly worked for 'fortis' a huge international company, did insurance and investing. thousands, if not tens of thousands of OS/2 seats.
and just the other day i pulled up to a wells fargo atm, and it was out of order... OS/2 in a reboot loop....
OS/2 was a major player, if not for very long...
Re:I liked this part (Score:5, Informative)
People nowadays just seem to think that nothing happened, but while it might have been as big a phenomenon as Windows, it sure isn't dead.
--Dan
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
CORBA has been around since at least 1991 (longer, I think), and most agree that it beat Microsoft in the DCOM-CORBA "Object Wars" (as evidenced by Microsoft moving on to Web Services). Although CORBA now provides the underlying technology for things such as J2EE, it is largely gone as far as a standalone technology. Was CORBA "passing thru" or was/is it a real technology?
OS/2 was also around for quite a number of years, and was until very recently an actual product. Great OS, IMHO. If we want to define Linux as being around long enough to not be "passing thru", then that applies to OS/2 as well.
DR-DOS? PC-DOS? Microsoft outlived them both. Or, to be fair, Microsoft did what it does best, redefined the game.
Mac OS? Doesn't get me started (although I like to think its making a comeback with OS X... made me a convert... UNIX OS with great apps and interface)
Now, I'm no defender of Microsoft, but I think what Bill Gates was probably saying was "Hey, we've faced down stiff competition before, and won. How is this different?" On that point, I have to agree. Maybe they will lose this time, but they have definatly been down this road before and know a little something about smashing threats.
(no, this is not a troll. My favorite OS'es are Linux and Mac OS. Just trying to credit where its due)
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is currently too much commercial money in Linux from many different players for it to just "go away". Also, MS's typical tactics that they use to "beat" the competition won't work on Linux. Price cuts may keep some from switching, however many that want to switch do it not just because of cost, but also choice. People and companies are tired of the MS slogan of give them the razors and sell them the blades. Most people are not dumb enough to buy into getting heavy discounts from MS. Because they all know that MS will try to make it back some other way once they are locked in. Many people and companies are also tired of the anti-competitve tactics and their freedom of choice being taken away. When you build your infrastructure on MS, then all those app you use are designed to function "best" when you ONLY use other MS stuff. I personally think that MS's goal is to be the ONE developer of all software. Sure, some of the small meaningless shareware type stuff will still float around. But for any of the bigger apps, protocols and codecs, MS wants to hoarde that and be the only controller. It kind of reminds me of a "One Ring to Rule Them All" type of deal.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
And let's face it: All MS did the last 20 years was defend their DOS/Windows dominaton. Network effects helped them greatly, OS/2 went away almost by itself (of course MS will always be MS so they also blackmailed German computer makers not to preinstall OS/2 - however OS/2 would have died anyway.), hardware makers fought the battle for them on servers. Microsoft had only to make sure x86 stays MS-only and hardware-maker would make the hardware cheap and fast enough to endanger Unix.
Linux changed all that.
On servers Linux is extremely successful and has already surpassed Windows in Europe, on embedded systems it is about to do the same. On the desktop we still have the big problem of weak software support, but unlike IBM or Microsoft the open source community has the power to create a complete desktop from scratch: KDE. It includes everything from browser to office suite and is certainly good enough for mainstream needs.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
You should read the J2EE specifications, its all in there. J2EE hides all of that CORBA stuff, but its in there.
CORBA is quite alive and well, with new specifications arriving all the time, especially in the telco arena (for network management, etc, there is still lots of active work).
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, we think Linux is a serious threat to our core business". POW, stock prices get hammered, they get sued.
The guy has to be the leader of the company, he's not there to look objectively at anything!
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
He means on the desktop. Obviously, even Bill knows that Linux kick MS ass on the server side. But until Linus starts bringing the GUI into the tree, then I would tend to agree that Linux will never make significant inroads to Windows.
Heck - Linux doesn't even have a desktop. X/KDE/Gnome/etc are responsible for that. And those run on other unices, too. I'm not sure why Linux = Windows competitor to most. It has nothing to do with a desktop OS.
new? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on. (Score:4, Interesting)
I use linux at work and for my servers, and I like it.
But really, windows is pushing new technologies more than linux.
Windows XP has USB 2.0, it has low-latency audio, it can play DVDs, it has translucent windows, built-in NAT, drag-and-drop CD recording, an MPEG-4 media player, it has an encrypted, compressed file system, they have fine-grained access controls, they have a common language runtime. They are pushing and developing modern programming languages so that we aren't all stuck programming in C. Some of this technology sucks, and most of it they didn't invent, but they are pushing new technology. (I also know that most of this stuff is available on linux, but it's also kind of a pain in the ass.)
Uhm, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the guy that managed to overlook the internet when he wrote The Road Ahead in 1995.
Re:Uhm, yeah. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uhm, yeah. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhm, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because he discounts it now doesn't mean he can turn around and dominate it later.
Re: Uhm, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
> And then proceeded to realize his oversight, turn is company around on a dime, and now has a large slice of that internet pie.
Heh. Eight years later and Microsoft's biggest contributions to internet culture are browser integration, Outlook backdoors, and e-mail trojans. I don't think he 'gets' the internet now any more than he did in 1995.
Re:Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in
You can certainly expect to find some files in
The point is that in the case of Apache it's an application running on a whole range of OS's. Additionally, it can run the web server with reduced or non-existant user permissions so if you hack it you're not going to get anywhere.
While there are certainly methods that can be used to perform OS typing, exploit searches, and the like the issue is size and time. A good Linux worm is going to take too much time to write unless you can find one vulnerable service that is running everywhere (BIND hacks, etc.).
MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.
Re:Uhm, yeah. (Score:4, Informative)
What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
What do you expect people? Bill Gates annouces that Linux is pretty damn good and may give it a whirl, in other news MS stock drops 50%.
This is just bait to get you guys all riled up. Welcome to PR.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but it does make me really curious about a few things.
I think the mere fact they talk about Linux in a USA Today interview with Gates says a lot. Besides, in the interview itself he isn't completely dismissive about Linux or OS/2. He said that OS/2 was serious competition because it had the weight of IBM behind it. If he's publicly saying the same thing about Linux then they are saying in public that it's a major threat.
Personally, I hope they misunderestimate Linux right until it kills them. I stand by my belief that once non-windows home computers have around 20% of the market share, MS is doomed. At that point, hardware manufacturers will be losing serious sales if they release products with only Windows drivers. Software manufacturers will either release only for Windows, or make the software multi-platform and increase their potential market by 20%. Game manufacturers will be in an even better situation. If they release for PC only, they hit a small market, if they make the game multi-platform, not only do they get the additional computers (Linux, OS X, etc.) but additional consoles as well. If MS loses the monopoly on Windows machines as game computers, and Apple decides to break their monopoly on Office by doing what they did with Safari... at that point MS is dead. Let's just hope they don't know it yet.
FIRST USE OF NEW JARGON (Score:5, Funny)
It's the GhandiCon!!!! THE GHANDICON!!! Everybody knows the GHADICON!!! So, where are we in the GHANDICON? Uh? Uh? Why didn't you said the GhandiCon? It would have beem simpler AND EVERYBODY USES IT NOW!!!
Ph4t Pr0ps to the GhandiCon!
(cf ESR Recasts Jargon File in Own Image [slashdot.org])
Yeah.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh I don't want to have all the fun, you can come up with some...
What other new innovative things has Microsoft done that really were flops.
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> They keep bring us new stuff like MS-Bob.... and Clippy...
Of all the stuff they've released in multiple markets over the past two decades, all you can find to troll with are Microsoft Bob (an application from 1995) and Clippy. Seems to me they might not be doing so bad after all. Why not compare modern versions of MS apps to versions of Mac OS or Linux from 1995 then?
I love Linux, but the Microsoft Bob troll is so crusty, like no mistakes were made with Linux or OS X over the years...
OS/2?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Off to RTFA to find out....
Re:OS/2?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, IBM couldn't market its way out of a paper bag when it came to desktop systems, they had absolutely horrid support, fairly crappy and overpriced development tools (VisualAge was too little, too late, and too buggy), and it never garnered the support necessary to become a serious contender... and I say this as someone who was an OS/2 fanatic back in the day. And while MS was slow on the uptake when it came to the Internet, IBM was downright glacial... most people ran Netscape for Windows under OS/2, which sucked... IBM did finally release a browser (which was damn good for the day), but long after most had given up.
AFAIK, even the banks are moving off of it now... OS/2 was long a mainstay in the financial world, especially at banks and ATMs. Most ATMs now run NT or a proprietary OS. There just isn't any reason to keep OS/2.
Flaming Bill.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? You bet on the 16-bit PC? 640k jokes aside, what other options were there at the time? GUI? Xerox/Mac beat you to it, and it was popular before you did it. NT tech? Hello, you stabbed 32-bit OS/2 in the back and used VMS as a model for the first NT, later making NT more like old Windows by incorporating more and more into the "microkernel".
Is it just me, or was he struggling? And I wonder if the reason MS licensing is such a low percentage due to the higher support costs for their buggy software. (Yeah, yeah, a flame.)
"At this point"? Very interesting that he seems to admit they might consider it at all. Or maybe I'm reading too much into a figure of speech.
subbing articles on himself (Score:5, Interesting)
BG: Are you kidding? I mean, let's be serious. That was IBM, a company 15 times our size. Name a bank that didn't use OS/2. OS/2 was IBM's product, and the IBM army marched behind that product.
Now replace IBM with Microsoft, and OS/2 with windows. Not so clever now Mr. Gates !
He is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, he is only right for now. Linux is a locomotive, and its only picking up steam.
Re:He is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if Microsoft Developed for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
With Linux, Microsoft has never had its hand in the pie. They have never had any control over its development. Linux bears no similarity to OS/2 as a competing technology. To suggest it is just wishful thinking on Bill Gates part.
This is USA Today (Score:5, Insightful)
So, here he says it isn't a big deal. I'm sure that in real life, he cares a great deal about it.
Re:This is USA Today (Score:5, Funny)
Well it could have been the New York Times (Score:4, Funny)
Would you have rather that the interview had been in the New York Times, written by Jayson Blaire as he sat in his Manhattan den, performing in his mind a visit to Gate's office in Redmond?
News flash - Bill Gates downplays linux (Score:5, Insightful)
> thru competition just like OS/2.
Well, what would you expect him to say? That Linux may (if people get their act together) start threatening Windows on the desktop, and that people are really not fond of Microsoft's draconian licensing schemes and forced inclusion of DRM in their products?
A newspaper interview with a businessman is nothing more than an opportunity for free advertising. You don't think Bill knows that?
Microsoft's WMD (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody used OS/2? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of his friends used OS/2 so nobody used it. I guess nobody uses mainframes either, and the Internet was invented 10 years ago.
Extremely ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprise: Xerox did that way before Microsoft ever thought about it. And Bill himself only thought about it when he saw one of the first demo model of the Apple Lisa (if I remember well). And that's just one example among many.
Microsoft never innovated: it just latched on all the good ideas. GUIs, ACLs, www browsers, spreadsheet, heck, even the mouse was invented by somebody else.
So, what kind of "innovations" has been created by Microsoft? Maybe Clippy. But that's it, and we all know how helpful that is...
And for those who may believe that Microsoft improved on all of these, I have just four words for you: Blue... Screen... Of... Death.
Whew! Enough ranting. You can start modding me down, now.
Re:Extremely ironic... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you know: Microsoft invented TCP\IP (backslash intended), text editors (vi is a clone), and 3D grapics (OpenGL stole Mr. Gates idea). Microsoft is the real victim here. If the rest of the world would simply respect their prowess, stop reverse-engineering their products, and sell their ideas to them, we would all be happy.
Must ... not ... gag ...
Re:Extremely ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the one that I can think of - use-based dynamic menus. Perhaps someone can point me to earlier cases of this, but I still like it and still find them useful.
There appears to be a religious objection to them in the Linux world, I suspect primarily because the idea came from Microsoft. OK - so some people hate them, meaning that the feature should be configurable. Despite that, I'd like to see dynamic menus start making their way outside of the Windows world.
It's not so much religious as practical. Think about it. Everytime you stop using a feature for w hile it disappears. Not once, not twice, all the time. Use it or lose it. If you start using a feature, the menu-option reappears.
This means your menu items are never in the same place! You quickly lose all efficiency, especially for menu-items that don't have icons in front of them. You can never sit down at some one else's workstation and expect things to be in the same place. I can't tell my mom she should use the third option from the top (which comes in handy sometimes when she's using a Dutch version of Office, whereas I'm using an English version and the translations are farfetched at best).
Also it changes the way pull down menus have worked for years, with the sole exception of most-recently used files (only at the bottom of the File pull down menu). Talk about breaking the user's mental model of your app!
GUI gurus know this. They tell you, if an option is not available, disable it (gray it out) so the relative position remains the same. This somehow applies to context menus, but not to pull down menus?
I'm all for simple vs. advanced pull down menus, but self-adjusting.. Puh-lease. Not to mention my startmenu is at the same time not alphabetized, as well as unpredictably axing applications all the time. I used it yesterday, now it's gone, but the app I used last a few months ago is still there.. Yikes.
I don't know if self-mutilating pull down menus are a True Microsoft Innovation (R) but yes, they are annoying. There are plenty of better GUI enhancements that could be supported..
Dear Bill (Score:5, Funny)
I am using Linux. Send me 8 copies of 2003 Advanced Server (under the GPL of course) for the same price, and I will be happy to switch.
spack
Re:Dear Bill (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for writing. I'll get your software in the mail right away; I just need your mailing address.
Oh, never mind, here it is in my SQL box, right here next to your SSN, your home phone, your shopping habits, your mothers maiden name, your dog's favorite food, and a complete catalog of your web surfing history.
MidgetsInLeather.com? Come on, spack.
Love, Bill.
Re:Dear Bill (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Get a Mandrake 9.0 ISO.
Serisously. It goes somthing like this:
Insert CD.
Partition things. Install things. Add a password. Reboot.
Congrats, you now have Linux with a pretty desktop, OpenOffice, Kmail and Mozilla.
Compair with XP:
Insert CD. Partion things. Format. Reboot. Install. Type in long setrial number. Reboot. Install more things. Install Office XP. Reboot. Register XP. Install SP 1-3. Reboot.
Re:Dear Bill (Score:4, Interesting)
If you just go to this little link [openoffice.org] right here you'll find a very easy to use Office app that you can install in a few clicks on Windows, Solaris or Linux. And not only does it not have to be compiled, it doesn't cost your money or freedom either!
Or perhaps you'd like the entire linux OS, free of licensing, without having to compile a single thing. Here [mandrakelinux.com] are [redhat.com] just [suse.com] a few [debian.org] examples [knoppix.com].
Uhm Mac OSX? (Score:4, Informative)
There have been numerous OS's that didn't and don't require you to have "esoteric" knowledge to install software. Should we do a little run through?:
MacOS (The original), Amiga, Atari, OS/2 for instance, right up to the morder day with Mac OSX, Linux (there are many distros and applications that require nothing more than double cklicking) right up and including my Nokia phone running Symbian.
Finally, an interview with Gates! (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that UNIX technology has been around for almost 40 years now and the Linux implementation of that standard in particular has been with us for 12 or 13 years, wouldn't it be fair to call Windows, the first 32 bit versions of which have only been with us for 8 years, the passing fad?
Re:Finally, an interview with Gates! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ultimate Dupe? (Score:5, Funny)
He's technically right (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true enough; the latest big MS strategy is unquestionably
The fallacy is confusing "bet the company on" with "innovated the technology for".
Linux is here to stay ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is here to stay, and they know it. This is _not_ like the OS/2 days. OS/2 was IBM's, GNU/Linux is a comunity, they can't sweep linux out of the market because most linux users uset it because they won't run anything from Microsoft. I know I do.
Even if RedHat, Mandrake and all commercial distros dissapear and SCO's FUD manages to kill Linux (highly unlikely) the mentality, press coverage and community that has gathered around GNU/Linux will live on in the *BSDs and even in OSX.
All the people and companies spreading FUD and satanizing Linux have, in some way or another, gained a lot from the GNU/Linux movement. SCO has lasted a little longer than it should have because of OpenLinux, OSX and Windows have incorporated software and ideas that were born in the GNU/Linux/*BSD world.
Even if Linux is to dissapear the "damage" is already done
Some would say that the "world domination" thingie has already started.
Microsoftie English (Score:5, Funny)
Normal person: Hey, like your hair cut Bill!
Bill: Thanks. I'm super-serious about my hair. Before it was totally random but now I'm totally dedicated to getting serious about it. My hair has my 100% committment and I'm going to be super-concentrating on that from now on.
Re:Microsoftie English (Score:5, Funny)
wow (Score:4, Funny)
-
What's it like be the richest person in the world?
-
How big is your house?
-
Do you have a big gold vault like Scrooge McDuck, filled with cash?
I'm glad USA Today surprised me with decent questions, maybe there is hope for other media outlets (cough.. Fox News).This is basically a dig at IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Gates bringing up OS/2 and comparing it to Linux is basically his way of raising his middle finger in the face of IBM. Gates and IBM had their rancourous falling-out over OS/2, and now that IBM has put much of its still-considerable muscle behind Linux this is his way of talking smack about IBM.
Gates' arrogance is amazing. Read between the lines here. He's saying "we killed OS/2 and we're going to kill Linux...the SCO lawsuit is just the beginning."
Thing is, you can't kill something that has no leaders and is not backed by a rival corporation. Even if Linux was temporarily crushed by MS action or government fiat, it could be revived at any time because the code is free and open and anyone who understands it can build on it.
Read your Greek mythology, Mr. Gates. Hubris goeth before a fall.
Bill Gates = HULK (Score:5, Funny)
Bill has questions. I have answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Apple [apple.com]
Gates: Who else has the guts to get speech, get the recognition levels up, get the learning levels up in the standard interface?
Me: Apple [apple.com]
Re:Bill has questions. I have answers. (Score:4, Informative)
Without arguing the merits of either technology, it does look like another case of MS jumping on the bandwagon long after it had gathered steam.
Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. It was a very short "interview".
2. Some of the questions had the tone of "devil's advocate", giving Gates the perfect opportunity to look like the good guy. (OS/2 question in particular)
3. There was no follow-up to anything, it was just question-answer, question-answer. So if this interview ever took place, it seems like it wasn't an interactive interview. (no big deal, just wanted to point it out)
My non-expert opinion? This was a canned PR interview that MS sent USA Today.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
The Anaheim Angels general manager uttered this statement: "This is a dynasty that cannot, and will not ever lose. We've won the Series once, and our destiny is to continue winning it every single year from now until baseball as we know it ceases to exist."
Lawrence "Bull in a China Shop" Ellison has declared, "Only Oracle had the foresight to retain market share in the face of determined opposition. Our share of the market continues to rise. In fact, it now stands at just over 107%."
"Bill Gates On Linux" (Score:5, Funny)
Is he running as an emulation or natively coded?
Why OS/2 "passed through" (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux suffers from some of these problems, but incompetency and bad marketing are hopefully not amongst them. The one thing Linux absolutely has to do however is start loading up with consumer features. This means making stuff easy, be it installing new drivers, supporting graphics and sound properly, playing games. At the moment Linux sucks unless you're prepared to put a lot of effort into it or never intend to change your hardware ever. At present I'd say that the big boys have just about mastered producing a reasonable desktop, but there is a long way to go yet.
Anyone else read subject and think.... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh, he probably needs a P4 4.4GHz to run though....
Of course he is going to say these things. (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition, CEOs are cheerleaders to the general masses. The article was written for USA Today, bought mostly for its 4 colour weather map.
Of course his answers are going to be biased. Of course they are going to be "MS NUMBER ONE!" in tone. It would be irresponsible if he didn't.
A CEO is a part sales person. He is selling MS. He and all sales people will streach the truth.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Licensing Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
> For any project, if you look at communications
> costs, hardware costs, personnel costs, all that,
> software licensing ranges -- the highest you'd
> ever find is, like, 3% of any IT-type project.
Wow. Not my experience, to say the least.
To me, this is indicative of exactly where Linux does and will continue to shine. The above statement is probably true for Chase Manhattan, and I doubt we'll see Chase switching to Linux anytime soon (although I don't doubt that their big iron is still a commercial UNIX).
Most of the people I deal with, though, are either small research groups or small businesses: Five guys with three computers and a world to conquer. This is where Linux is already excelling, and I think this is where it will excel for the immediate future.
That is why Gates is wrong. OS/2 had some advantages over Windows (such as the 'IBM army' as he puts it), but it was competing with Windows for the same goal. Where I see Linux being really successful is in places where the Microsoft Barrier-to-Entry(tm) is just too high. Unlike OS/2, Linux isn't going to be driven from these places. Linux is not going away, although it may not be going to the foreground, either.
And as more and more small businesses and contractors and researchers use Linux to do cool and interesting things on the cheap, bigger businesses will start to notice.
Passing through, alright (Score:5, Funny)
Consistent Message (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies.
This is quite consistent with what Bill Gates has said many times before, that "freedom to innovate" was endangered by any action against Microsoft, despite it being officially judged a monopoly.
Alongside this use of doublespeak is the recent lobbying by the "Institute for Software Choice" in Australia for government organizations there to avoid free and open source because of the economic harm it would cause to MSFT, a corporation based in the United States.
As a U.S. citizen, I've already enjoyed the benefits of free and open source software developed in Australia and look forward to seeing more of it. Likewise, a lot of free and open source software has been developed in the United States that could be of great benefit to Australian users in government, industry and at home. I don't see why the Australian government should be especially restricted from making the kinds of command decisions on IT infrastructure that companies all over the world make every day - you know the kind - the corporate standard is to run Windows and to use Word, etc.
The hue and cry about freedom of choice and innovation is only raised when there is a palpable danger that the choice might be other than one designed to further bolster the financial interests of Microsoft, or that innovation might result in a potentially lucrative new technology being developed outside Microsoft.
People like Bill Gates who, with his money and fame, enjoys instant access to government officials and the media across the world to promote his point of view (aligned to increase shareholder value at MSFT) is able to get an audience that common people, or even average knowledgeable IT people, simply cannot hope to get.
The fact that free and open source software is making inroads through grass-roots word of mouth based on its own merits, devoid of such a heavily funded marketing organization, and despite this lopsided point of view being propagated by Gates at the highest levels and in most public venues, is a remarkable testament to Lincoln's adage that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time".
It gives me hope.
Bowl size not mentioned (Score:4, Funny)
btw, MS didn't kill OS/2, IBM did to protect thier PC business and the Windows discounts that kept them competetive. It was IBM vs. IBM as much as it was MS vs. IBM. But I suppose it's the "victor" that gets to write history, no?
Times are MUCH different now (Score:4, Informative)
Back then, we had MS already deeply entrenched because of the licensing deal with MS-DOS. Windows was an obvious upgrade. So you buy a PC with MS-DOS, perhaps Windows, or a Mac. This is what the consumers bought. Large institutions were still working on UNIX, mainframes with COBOL, etc.
Now...now you have a computer as common an appliance as a telephone and a toaster. MS is still deeply entrenched, no doubt about it. But this ignorance of "we beat other OSes before" won't last this time. Now we've got 8 year old kids beating the crap out of me with their *NIX coding, with these kids networking their house for their parents, playing with other operating systems. The kids see other alternatives to servers and OSes more suited to programming. So what if Linux isn't on the desktop yet. If it's got THIS much popularity without a pretty desktop face, just wait until it DOES get one. And do you really think...after the Internet bubble burst, companies would be blindly embracing something without a viable reason? IBM, HP going with Linux. Apple with a UNIX core...
The point is, more people are actually willing to try other OSes right now, not just the select few that could afford a $3,000 286 Leading Edge Model D.
La vie en rose (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what some corporate director thinks of Linux? Linux and OSS do not have to compete in the market as they are not of the market. They cannot be bought or sold, or controlled, driven out of business.
OSS is not another Pepsi for the masses, its for coders, and people that want an OS that was created to be useful, not filled with stupid sh*t thought up by a focus group.
Bill goes on about all of the hot new "technologies" that MS is creating, all with suitably meaningless code names, "longhorn", "lance", "infinity", "big sleek cat like thing". Who knows if any of these things will be useful. Most MS technologies seem to be focused on locking their customers in to their platform rather than providing any useful functionity. Paladium, Doc scripting, passport, the paperclip, need I say more?
Commercial software is increasingly becoming a platform to get you to buy other stuff. Personally, I get enough advertising stuffed through my eyeballs already. Its like movie theatres, remember when you used to go to a movie pay your $2.50 and NOT be showen 30m of commercials before the movie started?
In a nut shell, commercial software producers think a great enhancement is a talking paperclip whereas OSS producers think a popup blocker is a good feature.
Just be happy, and grateful to OSS developers, that you have a choice.
OS/2 is the future. (Score:4, Informative)
We missed a chance??? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait. You mean *Gates* was sitting still for...
open standards, open standards, open standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Bill's interview is typical PR material; anyone from MS's marketing group could probably give the same interview. But what scares me, is that every time Microsoft "innovates", all they really do is make stuff that is incompatible with anything non-Microsoft (and sometimes their own products aren't compatible!)
That in mind, it seems more important to me to promote open standards than Linux itself. Of course I would love to see Linux have a respectable desktop market share for better OEM support. But what good is my Linux machine if I can't even surf the web because too many web pages are written only for IE? How much of a pain is it if I have to tell everyone to resend their MS Office documents in a format I can read (OOo won't always cut it)?
And now we're seeing some cases where the US and/or state governments' are officially blessing Microsoft's otherwise incompatible data formats---this should be criminal! Public information that is avaialable electronically (either through the web or some other means) should not dictate which software is used to view, edit, modify or interact with that data.
If you go to a "IE only" government website, you're effectively seeing a tax funded advertisement for Microsoft. Your taxes paid for the software purchase, for the staff to setup and maintain that system, and now you're effectively taxed again by being forced into purchasing some (very expensive) software. And people call open source communist?!
I think we need to put some effort into a strong "inform the masses" campaign. An easy first step is to write editorials to your local paper brining to light the dangers of proprietary data formats and vendor lock-in. I was thinking about pre-scripting a lot of these letters and posting them on my website for all to use/borrow/steal/whatever. These letters also need to be sent to government representatives.
The article should contain proposed solutions. As much as we love Linux and friends, we can't beat it down peoples' throats. Some other viable thoughts:
Finally, I think it's important to have some good, strong analogies or metaphores to illustrate the negative impact of the Microsoft monopoly (and their use of proprietray, non-compatible data formats). The most obvious analogy, to me, is as follows:
What if Ford Motor Co. owned all the roads in the U.S.? Surely they would design the roads such that only Ford vehicles worked on them. And furthermore, they would hide behind IP laws to make it illegal for anyone to make a car for their roads. What if Ford only offered one or two models of cars that actually worked on these roads? And those cars were their most expensive?
If the above scenario were true, public outrage would be rampant. Most people simply don't realize that this contrived situation is the case with Microsoft. Worse, people don't understand the implications of Microsoft literally owning your data.
Welcome to the United States of Microsoft, comrade.
Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And don't forget about! (Score:5, Insightful)
We bet on graphical user interface.
Funny, I seem to remember that someone else had already proven the GUI in the market when MS "bet" on it.
Re:And don't forget about! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft was the LAST person to the party when it came to the GUI. The same thing goes for "NT" technology. Billy is still trying to effectively replicate both MacOS and OS/2.
Re:And don't forget about! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let see:
- IBM bet on the 16-bit PC.
- Apple bet on the graphical user interface
- Netscape bet on the web.
- The NT technology base (thats "new technology" technology for those don't know) was forced down user's throats.
- Sun bet on the internet and Java (MS calls this stuff
Yeah, MS took some big risks there
Re:And don't forget about! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that's a very good summary of why MS has been a good business. They let other people shoulder the venture risk, often with MS' funding, then they take the (prospected and analyzed) risk of a full deployment of that technology. If their product is often inferior, it's inconsiquential to the Gee-Wiz factor and the confidence people have[/had] that the company would improve it. In the past, MS was usually the first one to show people new tech.
...which brings us to today (and reality). You'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the tech sector that has confidence in MS' responsibility to deliver good code. MS has to rely on managing bureaucracy's confidence in MS, which still exists because MS is a successful business. Thanks to the Internet, and MS' demonstrated incompetence at using it as a tech showroom, MS is no longer the first company to show tech to most people. Now the companies that actually shouldered the initial risk can show the tech off. MS can still offload initial risk, minimizing their liabilities, but it's harder to yank the rug out from their "partners" now. Recently, they've tried patenting ideas their partners are developing that they're funding. Half the time, they've got a contract that permits it, and the other half of the time it's illegal but the patent department thinks they have the right contract.
Anyhow, MS can still fund innovation, but the other two leverages are gone. That leaves us with the business practice of funding innovative and/or useful projects and selling the results with a service plan. Oddly enough, that's what OSS-interest companies are learning how to do.
Segueing back to the first paragraph, I've some political speculation. In the USA there's a tendancy to try to team up and pick a winner, which is why people tend to try to stick with the popular choice, even if it's inferior. This is probably because of the mindset of strategic voting required for multi-candidate plurality voting to function in a reasonable way. That is, everyone decides to buy MS because that'll give MS more money (resource) to work with to improve their product, as opposed to giving a lot of candidate companies a little money. This may explain why countries with wiser voting systems [wikipedia.org] (like Borda Count [wikipedia.org], Instant Runnoff [wikipedia.org], or {my favorite} Condorcet's Method [wikipedia.org]) more readily adopt Linux, BSD, or adopted BeOS.
Re:It's an _ok_ article (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux is certainly not like Windows, and when Microsoft starts to clone functionalities in KDE/Gnome, wouldn't people say that Windows is just like KDE/Gnome/Linux?