Ballmer on Linux 472
theodp writes "'In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims,' warned Steve Ballmer, saying that Microsoft customers would be protected from the $550 million Eolas patent infringement judgment. 'I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt,' said the CEO of the company who earlier cried wolf about breaking IE in the wake of the Eolas judgment, prompting the W3C to go to bat for the software giant."
Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that last line of the article.
"I just think people should go out and research this for themselves".
Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions independant researchers to prove their point of the day.
My assessment (not that you asked)?...
Well, my research showed that patent infringement issues in Linux will more than likely get the same treatment as GIF files. If something does come up that really is an infringement, it'll stink for a few years, and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better solution than the patented one anyway.
Then again, I've already got my company running on Linux servers, so perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part. *shrugs*.
Necessity is a Mutha (Score:5, Interesting)
it'll stink for a few years, and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better solution than the patented one anyway.
Which, when you think about it, has been the intiative behind lots of great development, if you don't like the toll road, dig your own and many fine things have come of this. Further browsers like Mozilla and Opera progress while IE stagnates.
What about quicksort? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about quicksort? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about quicksort? Imagine if that was patented.
Quicksort was (first?) published in the Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery in July, 1961. It's safe to assume it was invented before then. Any patent on it would have long expired.
It's been shown to be the fastest sort possible, if I remember right
On some sets of data, perhaps. There are many sorts that are comparibly fast (faster for some data, slower than others). If you restrict the kind of data you're sorting, there are much faster algorithms.
One of my favorites is the Radix Sort [wikipedia.org], which was half invented by IBM, and half organically developed by their punch card tabulators towards the beginning of the 20th century (generating statistics for the US Census). If you're sorting on a numeric key field with a fixed number of digits, you do a fast stable sort on the least significant digit of the key, and then sort on the next most significant, and so on. You can sort large amounts of data in O(nk) time rather than O(nlogn) for Quicksort, plus, you can use the sort by hand on physical objects, Quicksort is hard to do without a computer.
Re:What about quicksort? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about quicksort? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, k is of the same order as logn.
Radix Sort, Merge Sort, Tree Sort. All order of n log n.
Radix sort has the advantage of being totally predictable and doable with exteremely limited local processing ability, like on a card sorter which can only examine on column of one card at a time. Essentially a one byte working memory. A card sorter can sort alpha. Two passes per column, second pass on the zone punch
Balmer doesn't let us research it ourselves! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love it if proprietary vendors allowed us the capability to evaluate the risks ourselves. I'll believe the story about proprietary being safer only after Microsoft lets customers audit their source to let me verify that their closed-source stuff doesn't infringe on patents I may be worried about. Note that they let important customers audit their source for security [computerworld.com] reasons. Losing mission critical infrastructor because a vendor didn't have the rights to it could be even more harmful to my business than a security hole (which I presume would be easily patched).
If my company depends on a closed-source application, and that application infringes on someone elses patent, I wouldn't want that software yanked out from under me. At least in an open source environment I can understand that the offending parts could be coded around. With closed source, it's more likely the vendor will have to stop providing the software. Also, in the open source case, there's a better likelyhood that people have scoured the source code looking for infringing patents.
So far most of the big vendors, MSFT included, have a pretty weak concept of indemnification - they'll cover purchases prices, and the like. Heck even Gentoo.org'll probably indemnify you the cost of the purchase price. Unless they start offering far better indemnification (cover the costs of migrating off their infringing software to an alternative), I'm better off with open source.
Re:Balmer doesn't let us research it ourselves! (Score:5, Insightful)
Looked at that way, Linux is probably the very safest Operating System out there from a patent point of view, because undoubtably Baystar/SCO and friends would have searched for any such patents critical to Linux and tried to acquire them.
I challange Balmer to hire someone to go through the Windows source code searchcing for IP violations with the same dilligence SCO has used looking for ways to own Linux.
Re:Balmer doesn't let us research it ourselves! (Score:4, Interesting)
Patent 1000 things about opening a file, 750 may be invalid, but sue people on all 1000 with your $40 billion fund and make SCO, RIAA, MPAA turn green with envy,
Re:Balmer doesn't let us research it ourselves! (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft. Software patents. Mono (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the triviality and obviousness of patents being issued today, there's practically no way Mono can be non-infringing. Yet it's even more dangerous to check for it, because then you get into a triple-indemnity situation. Letting Mono burrow its way into Linux culture, software, infrastructure, and support is ASKING for trouble a few years down the road. It's putting a giant SUE ME sign out.
Besides, "Microsoft done right" isn't aiming that high. We could do better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft. Software patents. Mono (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, back in the early nineties they even standardised the Windows API. OpenWin32 it was called, iirc. Wow. That did a whole bunch of good for competition in the market, didn't it?
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many OSS projects exist for the sole purpose of getting around a bad(patented, etc) piece of software? Hint: OpenSSH, zlib, tons others.
Who cares more about patents again?
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:3, Informative)
MS is spending money, giving it to slashdot/OSDN, to advertise products that 90%+ of the readership isn't interested in, and you're somehow upset about this?
They spend money to gain nothing; OSDN/slashdot gain money and lose nothing. You need to get your priorities straight, I think...
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of free speech confuses you? Should the editors refuse MS money and not allow them to advertise content directly opposing their views? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the editors refuse MS money and not allow them to advertise content directly opposing their views? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
What bothers me about that is that advertisers can manipulate a publication by threatening to pull advertising revenue if they get negative publicity. If this site became dependent on MS advertising, then MS could do just that.
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit like saying that a TV channel depends on the one company that at a certain time is buying most of the comercial time.
The threat to pull advertising to censor publications does happen [wired.com].
I thought the ads are served by a 3rd party company, based on keywords/page content or something like that?
The ads on this site are served by OSDN.com, which owns Slashdot [slashdot.org], so it isn't exactly a third party company. OSDN is now called OSTG [ostg.com], but the ads still use the "ads.osdn.com" URL.
You Don't Say?!? (Score:5, Funny)
There's a first time for everything.
Re:You Don't Say?!? (Score:5, Funny)
"This fear, uncertainty and doubt isn't Fear uncertainty and doubt! There is nothing to see here. Be afraid, uncertain and doubt Free products." (waves hand)
Fired up (Score:5, Funny)
Eyewitnesses at the conference where Ballmer made this statement noted that he started running around the stage trying to rile up the crowd by shouting "Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers!"
Re:You Don't Say?!? (Score:2)
Re:You Don't Say?!? (Score:5, Funny)
- There's a first time for everything.
Or maybe it's akin to the old Hee Haw [wikipedia.org] skit:
Well, we're not the kind that go 'round spreading rumors,
Why really, we're just not the gossippy kind!
Oh, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip.
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time.
He's telling the truth. He's not spreading FUD. He's originating it.
He really isn't, he is advertising Linux. Really (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer of course is MS. How many people have seen the name Linux for the first time in an MS ad or press release?
You don't see car company A constantly talking about car company B. Imagine your a store owner on a triple A location selling X. Are you then really going to talk to the customer about you really are much much
OS at odds with MS again, no surprise there.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, reading the article, either the writer is unsympathetic to MS, or Balmer is really putting out some mixed messages
"Ballmer scoffed at arguments that his company's operating system creates a computing monoculture" vs his statement "Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology".
Sounds like he's been spinning so much, he's dizzy
Simon.
Linux to Ballmer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux to Ballmer (Score:5, Interesting)
developers
developers
developers
developers! [tarmo.fi]
and that's that!
Re:Linux to Ballmer (Score:2)
Re:Linux to Ballmer (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I am new here. Why do you ask? (Score:3, Funny)
(to me that is, not Ballmer. Actually she wasn't my girlfreind, she just lived across the street and never closed her curtains).
ahem Ballmer flunks patent law (Score:2, Insightful)
Try again Mr Ballmer, I suck at Patent Law...
Re:ahem Ballmer flunks patent law (Score:5, Informative)
Often vendors/makers don't even have the right to sublicense patented techcnology to the end users, like the case of Cognos, who lost the lawsuit with Timeline despite the fact it was Microsoft who had infringed [winnetmag.com]
FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said
Fear - Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
Uncertainty - "In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Doubt - On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
Re:FUD? (Score:3, Funny)
Does this represent a plan for fixing the holes that still exist after SP 2? Say, give up market share to Linux so that Windows presents less of a target?
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting question would be if it'd also be 0wned just as much.
He's wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
One word: APACHE
Which gets attacked more, Apache or IIS. Which has more market share?
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, Linux seems to make it easier for the technical user to secure his box. If the lusers get pwned, then that's nothing new - Linux or Windows.
Re:FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the popularity point always has one big, fat, sweating problem - Apache.
Re:FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all moot anyway, all it really takes, no matter how 'secure' Linux is, is for an inexplicably popular program to have a hole in it. That's why Mozilla exploits are just as scary as OS exploits.
Hmmmm.. but if there is a hole in Mozilla, it will still only have the access rights that the user has. As a result, it is still more secure as the *majority* of Windows users run as Administrator and as a result, an exploited popular program would have free reign over a system .. on linux/bsd, it would still
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
I always love reading that one. Sure, it'll be attacked just as much, but like shooting a BB gun at a person in a suit of armor, they won't get through nearly as much as when shoot at that poor naked man (MS Windows).
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
One key concept is the seperation of kernel space and user space. The kernel sits between the hardware and the programs. When a program wants to write something to the screen, it doesn't do it directly but throught the kernel. The kernel acts like a centry, so to speak, and prevents misuse or stealing of system resources by programs, and also provides a nice abstraction layer for the programers. The user's programs run in their own memory spaces (allocated by the kernel and enforced by the kernel) and the kernel sits in it's own protected memory space.
One of the biggest differences between MS and *nix is that the distinction between kernel space and user space is more blured in MS than in *nix. MS has had a bad habit of tying thier programs into deep hooks inside their kernel in order to get some extra functionality or a bit of performance increase. The problem with this is that it provides a route for errors/viruses/malware/etc to enter into the kernel space through a regular program. Hence, an IE bug becomes a Windows bug. If MS kept a better speration of their programs and thier kernel, a lot of thier problems would probably disappear.
I agree with you about security being a process, not something you can buy in a box. But what you get in that box determines where on the security spectrum you start. A system that allows any user to run as administrator and has a LOT of ports open by default (why I'll never know) is a bit harder to secure and keep secure than a system where there is a clear division between users, access rights, and power where things are turned off by default instead of on by default.
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)
the legal theory is right in the us code (Score:3, Informative)
That's not to say that users would be sued more oft
FUD for Dummies (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't worry about on a weekly basis your computer and all your precious data is at risk thanks to our security holes.
"not trying to spread fud" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"not trying to spread fud" (Score:2)
-russ
oblig. Simpsons, with apologies (Score:2, Funny)
So, do we start calling Ballmer, 'Duf-man' or what?
"Duf-man, not spreadin' FUD, ooh yeah!"
-r
He does got a point (Score:5, Informative)
He does got a point here. And that's one of the (many) reasons why software patents are evil. Read more here [wikipedia.org].
Blatant Lie (Score:5, Informative)
IBM, HP, Sun, and others have ALL either stood behind or promised to stand behind their Linux patent interests. Ballmer's statement is a blatant lie and he knows it.
Re:Blatant Lie (Score:2, Insightful)
Sites that like you will spin it in a good way. People reading those sites will continue to like you.
Sites that don't like you will spin it in a bad way. People reading those sites will continue to dislike you.
The only real way to convert people from one camp to another is individuals reaching out to individuals...I'd sooner trust someone I know personally about a subject than I woul
Re:Blatant Lie (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a military tactic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, telling lies for commercial gain was called "fraud" and punished accordingly. These days it's called "marketing" and proponents of it are rewarded with high-paying jobs.
Now tell me, why do we have a problem with being constantly buried in bull?
no fud? (Score:5, Informative)
In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims
what about OSRM [osriskmanagement.com]?
just my 2 cents (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:just my 2 cents (Score:2)
dance MONKEY BOY! (Score:3, Funny)
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten," Ballmer said.
yea.. he will be out of a job..
Who protects us from MS's patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who protects us from MS's patents? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who protects us from MS's patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
As to the use of Tabs for moving amongst links, I seem to recal doing that in Mosaic and Lynx in the early 90's.
The next great thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Puh-lease. I was at the introduction of XML and CDF back in 1996/7 by Microsoft. They also handed out 4.0 beta disks of IE 4.0 at the event. I think it was called World Wide Live.
MSFT's gone nowhere fast with XML, while the rest of the developer world embbraced and extended it. They (MSFT) finally decided on a strategy for it what, three years ago? And now it's going to be the next big thing of the coming decade?
No wonder Linux runs circles around the Redmond Behemoth...
Re:The next great thing? (Score:2)
Then why aren't their Office formats becoming XML based?
Riiiiight... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least now it's out in the open. (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullstuff (on Ballmer).
It's not protection money. They'll just pass the cost on to their customers like every other business. In fact (with a $50 billion cash bank account they are just now starting to dispense to shareholders, etc.) you could argue they already have passed it on to us through inflated prices.
For all that talk Ballmer goes through about there not being any such thing as a free lunch, you'd think he'd at least have read what his ECON101 text book had to say about it.
W3C -- bad wording (Score:5, Informative)
I dont buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
They would fight to keep the offending product on the shelves, but NOT to 'protect' its users..
And if they loose, you are on your own.
I really hate this argument (Score:5, Informative)
You see this argued a lot here on
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.
Re:I really hate this argument (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, for now. What's going to happen in five years when KDE or Gnome developers decide to continue with their fledgling registries? They're not official called a "registry" but it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out where a general system database is going.
Is it just me or is this hilarious? (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
I am just speechless. I better sit down.Not FUD?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ahh, wait. Now why do they bother supporting Linux or Unix if they feel that it's not good enough? I would imagine that if you are that confident in how a rival product is shitty, you would just go ahead and not offer support. But MS wants to leverage customers who have Linux and Unix systems, but yet diss Linux. Sheer hypocrisy.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Yes smartass. But resisting the attack will be the better one, and that will not be based on what's popular. Are they trying to say that Linux is popular, now? Out of the horse's own mouth, eh.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
Boo! The only reason the software industry is so messed up by patents is beause big businesses want to resort to their lawyers in case something goes wrong, and not technology. How about building great technology and not resort to cheap practices, for a change?
Sheesh. I'm fuckin' mad as hell. Not FUD? That's all there is in that.
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
--
The press don't read what's said, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Apache httpd gets attacked even though it has the market share of on-line web browsers... fortunately the attacks are looking for M$ IIS holes...
Re:The press don't read what's said, really. (Score:2)
I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Noting the prevalent use of pen and paper by audience members, Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation
Perhaps it was because no reporter was willing to bet their career on a laptop running Windows XP?
Ironically, 20 years from now, these reporters will still be able to read their handwritten notes, but Microsoft will have long abandoned the audio and video codecs used to record the speech today...
And that's assuming that the recording media is still playable. How many people can read 5 1/4" floppies any more?
In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
This is an abject legal falsehood; a patent ownder can sue the users of the patent if they so desire. They might choose instead to sue Microsoft, but there is no legal indemnification from a patent lawsuit - Microsoft's EULA explicitly denies liability in this regard. And considering that Microsoft's customers have already been sued over patents (Timeline, anyone?), I don't see how he can even believe this truthfully. And to make matters worse, Microsoft has sued its own customers.
If anything, using Microsoft instead of open source software imposes an even greater risk of patent liability on the users.
Re:I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I chuckled at the same thing but figured it was because no one wanted to risk being dragged out of the room by the FBI for reproducing copyrighted material with a proper license agreement signed by Ballmer, the entire MS legal department, and Bill Gates' dog to boot.
Loony toons (Score:5, Funny)
His math is wrong (Score:2)
So, what you you prefer? Pay $1 in the event of a patent - or pay $500 for the program in question?
(Yes, my numbers are just guesses, but I think you understand my point: paying for a patent infringment, if it happens, is cheaper then buying from someone who will "protect" you.)
IP ate my vision (Score:5, Funny)
Because the speech was encoded using WMA Digital Rights Management, restricting the delegates from recording his words except via an audio stream licensed from Microsoft. Extracting audio "snippets" was prohibited by the DRM software, which meant that reporters on radio could either stream his entire speech or none of it.
A separate license was required to decode the real-time audio, with royalties paid by-the-minute (even modern-day-techno-savy journo's don't want to pay to broadcast Ballmer looking like a monkey) to the owners of the audio-streaming technology, which in this case happened to be Microsoft.
Finally, the PowerPoint presentation was similarly protected by traditional copyright law (its binary), the DMCA (its digital transmission), and - if it's been XML exported with the latest Office - probably patent law as well.
Microsoft protects me against nothing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is he implying that I would have to pay the judgement if Microsoft did not? This is just wrong! End users of Microsoft software are not liable for Microsoft's theft of intellectual property.
Not surprisingly, a similar misunderstanding of copyright law was the linchpin of SCO's extortion of Linux users. It's not surprising because Microsoft's funding of SCO bought the suit in the first place.
So, let's see: they don't understand copyright law and they don't understand patent law. Maybe this is why Microsoft is continually being sued for IP infringement!
OSRM (Score:2)
http://www.osriskmanagement.com/index
Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for protecting an individual's rights as the creator of something (be it software, music, film). But patenting concepts is stupidity in itself.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next computer literate person, but in this case I hope Microsoft wins.
The EFF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure Microsoft has more money to throw at the problems, but then again they also spend their time flooding the system with more unnecessary patents, for whatever reason.
I can get behind this statement. (Score:3, Funny)
I agree. I sincerely doubt that SCO will be around in ten years.
That's because... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because we all know software patents are bogus.
From the article (Score:2)
I guess the only arena in which we can verify this is the server market. Anyone have any hard figures on successful attacks against Linux servers vs. those on Windows servers?
Next ten years better than the last ten? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The Web*.
2. E-Mail*.
3. Home computers go mainstream.
4. Win95/98/NT/2000/XP (poke fun all you want, but you can't argue that these weren't a major improvement over what they replaced).
5. OSS, Linux, GNU, BSD*.
6. 3D games with realistic jibbing.
7. (about a dozen more which I'm forgetting)
* Yes, these were around before 1994, but between 94-04 is when they became tools of the common folk.
Re:Next ten years better than the last ten? (Score:3, Insightful)
- 2.2 GHz sure kicks 40 MHz, and
- The architectural garbage of the Intel line doesn't rear it's ugly head very often (when writing assembly or stepping through the actual assembly instructions). The rest of the time, the compiler protects you from the filth.
But yes, those were really nice chips.
Great Political Talk (Score:2, Interesting)
He fails to mention if attacks would be as successful on attacking Linux as they are Windows. Great way to answer a question without answering it
I think a ruse is going on at Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the bat Microsoft swings at it's custom (Score:3, Interesting)
And another thing about this Ballmer guy:
THIS was nicely worded, as only Microsoft could:
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," Ballmer said.
The interesting word is "attacked". Notice he didn't say 'broken into'. There is a night and day difference between being attacked and having attacks suceed. And in MS Winodws case, crashing to its knees from almost every attack.
Microsoft is THE master marketing company and could probably sell an elephant as a duck. Oh wait, they do.
LoB
Wee Bill Wonka's FUDge Factory is... (Score:3, Interesting)
But Ballmer shed his visionary mantle soon after, taking shots at the open source software development community and warning participants to think twice before adopting open source products like Linux.
Translation: We're ticked people put software out there that we charge exorbitantly for and they have the nerve to code it better than we do.
"I'm as fired up now as I've ever been in 24 years at Microsoft," Ballmer said.
Translation: I've nerver been so damned mad and scared for my own cushy job security in 24 years of being at Microsoft.
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten," Ballmer said.
Translation: This keeps up we're going to miss our quarterly projections again and continue to loose our monopolistic stranglehold on the home computing industry that we've had in the last ten over the next ten.
Ballmer promoted his company's products as a key to that transformation, including the next version of the Windows operating system, dubbed "Longhorn," and the company's
Poster's commentary: Makes me wanna revive the "Where's the Beef" commercials from over 10 years ago with all the hooplah, smoke and mirrors I keep reading about "Longhorn". I can see it now, They'll start calling computer viruses on "Longborn" (intentional mis-spelling) Mad Cow Disease and we see more countries banning the sale and distribution of Microsoft "beef" possibly.
Joking about recent news regarding a curtailed list of features in Longhorn, Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
Poster's commentary: Only at Microsoft would a major overshoot of a release become the joke to them that it is to the rest of us.
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
"The fact that companies like Oracle (Corp.), IBM (Corp.) and (Microsoft) have bet on an architected approach to interoperability is huge," he said.
Translation: Since our corporate peers are lining up to kick our butt with Open Source we better buckle and see what all the fuss is about. This is merely another move by Microsoft to catch the last of the waves as the sun sets and they're "Johnny Come-lately" to the next trend.
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
Translation: We better suck it up and realize we have to straighten out our backyard since the Open Source is making so many significant innovations and has an ability to patch their software so fast we don't even get to read the patch update notice before it's done, damn it! It's not far that Open Source has the ability to call on developers "all over the map", woe is us, how can we compete with the world? You can't Stevie, so suck it up and bask in your glory while it lasts.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Translation: For them (Open Source), there too many targets. For us, (Microsoft) the litigants have an easy target. Strength in numbers, Steve! *grin*
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and res
But will Balmer/MS put indemnification in writing? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd really like to ask the question, will Ballmer, on behalf of Microsoft, put that in writing? Will Microsoft provide a written guarantee that they will indemnify their customers against claims of infringement by their software? Not from anything I've seen. So far, here is what Microsoft has put in writing:
From their site, For Business (Windows 2003 Server) [microsoft.com]:
And from their site, For Consumer (XP HOME) [microsoft.com]:
I really don't see where Microsoft is giving anything to people above what Linux is giving, i.e. nothing, except people can see the Linux source code and it is possible if something infringing is present it can be removed.Well, I have researched it for myself and gone right to your company's written EULAs and read them, Mr. Ballmer. Unless and until Microsoft is willing to give (or sell) written indemnification for non-infringement then all your claims represent are a worthless cant of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Paul Robinson
Am I the only one who remembers...? (Score:4, Interesting)
and MS stands behind their "misappropriated" work (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not capture his speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly they probably didn't think of doing it, which I assume is your point. But even if they did think of it, I doubt that Microsoft declared your speech to be public domain or handed out written authorizations to reproduce it. In today's IP-obsessed, everything-is-copyrighted legal climate, which Microsoft has done a lot to nurture, the risk of infringement is probably a good deterrent against using these nifty technologies to record and reproduce anyone's output, other than from public employees and political candidates.
Fine. (Score:3, Funny)
Whatever, just don't dance again.