Microsoft Advised To Learn To Love Linux 418
mikael writes "ZDnet is reporting that the management guru Clayton Christensen (author of "The Innovator's Dilemma") has advised Microsoft to learn to love Linux. In particular he advises Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion", otherwise they will see their applications sucked off from the desktop and onto handheld devices such as the Blackberry."
Love already there (Score:5, Funny)
They bought SCO didn't they?
Re:Love already there (Score:4, Funny)
Well I'm not so sure about Microsoft, but I know Bill Gates does. The internet says so, and it never lies!! [bbspot.com]
---
Re:Love already there (Score:5, Funny)
s/your/you're
need sleep..
s/sleep/life
Joking!! I joke because I love. And probably because I need to get my own life.
Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to forget that if Microsoft were to completely pull out of the Operating System, Office, games and internet markets (and just about everything else) and devote themselves to say... selling sol.exe (Solitaire for the non windows persons) for a dozen different platforms... even without a single sale, the pile of cash they are sitting on, in addition to their assets would be sufficient to keep them afloat for many many years.
--
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is also one of the main reasons for Microsoft and many other companies doing really dumb things for short term gains.
REALITY CHECK (Score:4, Interesting)
- Microsoft had 36.8 BILLION dollars in revenue last year (up from 32 BILLION the year before)
- Microsoft had 8.6 BILLION dollars in NET PROFIT last year (I wish I could fail that much)
- Microsoft has 70 BILLION dollars of cash
- Microsoft has seen revenue and profit growth for every year of their existence
Thank You. Now wake up.
Re:REALITY CHECK (Score:3, Informative)
Re:REALITY CHECK (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
None-the-less you're right - Microsoft won't burn in a day.
Re:Both your comment and the article are correct (Score:3, Insightful)
And it doesn't even matter what most people have on their computers. Most people will never install an operating system. Most people will never purchase an operating system. Most people will never purchase a Word Processor. So what matters to MS is what the computer comes with. So far MS is nearly unchallenged in this area, but that could change VERY quickly.
Fortunately for those of us who prefer something else, we aren't the major enem
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to forget that if Microsoft were to completely pull out of the Operating System, Office, games and internet markets (and just about everything else) and devote themselves to say... selling sol.exe (Solitaire for the non windows persons) for a dozen different platforms... even without a single sale, the pile of cash they are sitting on, in addition to their assets would be sufficient to keep them afloat for many many years.
Not true at all. If Microsoft did this, their shareholders would demand the cash pile be given back to them immediately. If they didn't comply, the investors would get rid of the board and install another one with a sensible business plan. Microsoft could well implode under such extreme conditions.
Rich.
Different perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Microsoft *as we know it* could implode one day doe to a bad business decision. Does this mean that they will still be making software? Don't know....
People seem to forget that if Microsoft were to completely pull out of the Operating System, Office, games and internet markets (and just about everything else) and devote themselves to say... selling sol.exe (Solitaire for the non windows persons) for a dozen different platforms... even without a single sale, the pile of cash they are sitting on, in addition to their assets would be sufficient to keep them afloat for many many years.
The business has decided to give away a large portion of its cash pile to its stockholders in the form of a buyback program and a huge dividend.
That is not to say that Microsoft could not sustain their operations for a long time via debt financing...
Now, the software suffers from an extreme economy of scale (variable costs are very low, fixed costs are very high), so if sales of Windows start to fall, it impact's Microsoft's budget really fast. THey are still forecasting something like 6% growth next year. But what happens if they end up losing market share to Linux? They can afford to cut prices *now* without endangering their operations, but if they lose market share this will not necessarily be the case.
Microsoft is under attack from multiple angles from rapidly maturing and credible compeition: OpenOffice, Linux, etc. These programs threaten their conjoined twin cash cows of Windows and Office. And if they can get 30% of the market (assuming no market growth), they will render Windows and Office unprofitable at current prices and budgets. Even half that would cut their profit by 50%. Now if the market grows those numbers grow with it, of course. At that point, Microsoft can either increase prices (damage their competitivity) or cut costs (pay programmers less and spend less on marketing, thus damaging their competitivity).
At this point, I do not see a long-term future for Windows in the face of Linux. And by the time Longhorn ships, we may be at a critical point.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Informative)
MS has been successful in leveraging their desktop monopoly into a monopoly on office software but they failed miserably in leveraging it into a monopoly on server, internet, consu
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
The company itself may stay afloat and pay its bills, but that doesn't matter to anyone except the employees. MS has always positioned itself as a growth company. That's changing, and they know it.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Insightful)
What Christen has demonstrated in his research, is that innovative companies have an unfortunate tendency to hold onto their existing business and an unwillingness to "eat their own young".
While this doesn't lead to an immediate collapse, it does impact them negatively and once the downward spiral starts, it can go very fast.
Yours,
Jordan
RTFB (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Christensen argues, according to many examples in many fields, ranging from excavating equipment to department stores, the new businesses, despite being apparently inferior in some ways, will end in dominating the whole field. That happens because the new way of doing business will evolve faster than the old, established way. Why evolve, if it's the best and most lucrative way? And, when the old managers wake up, it's too late.
Re:Microsoft hasn't evolved? (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to get into markets where nobody's solved the problems. Microsoft got a GUI on commodity hardware, and an integrated office suite wi
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
MS is putting a lot of effort into getting their software on handheld devices. There's:
As you can see, Microsoft is already pretty serious about getting their software onto handheld devices. Their marketing department also seems to have done a
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you play dirty, and by dirty I mean attempt to gain control of consumer behaviour in a proprietary sense, that is. to proprietarize behaviour that is currently non-propriety.
You have guessed it: entertainement. Microsoft is aware of the potential revenue loss due to encraoching platforms and wishes to maintain revenue by getting control over music and movies and forcing it's proprietary format to maintain billions in revenue..
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not the problem. The problem is that people in the industry have just seen Linux and Open Source strike that blow and are now realizing that if they ever questioned Microsoft's leadership, they have a new ally... and an ally that has the ability to hurt Microsoft. Camp lines are being drawn and the gorilla is hurt. This is when he's the most dangerous of course.
Of course, OOS and Linux have not yet achieved maturity but they have established unbreakable inroads so even if the gorilla wa able to stave them off, they could not truly reduce the size and interest in it at this point.
Open source effectively checkmates Microsoft's 8000 lb gorilla; Because Microsoft is heavily reliant upon maintaining a shrinking monopoly, they must focus all their energies on keeping it from growing.
The patent wars have already begun and they will wage for probably another 10 years and there is only one obvious way to go and that is a better patent process and the negation of existing patents. This will strike a SERIOUS blow to Microsoft and the best that they can hope for is to influence the process because by this point, supporters of OOS and Linux will effectively have a greater combined strength.
Microsoft's best hope is to entrench themselves in the desktop. As programming evolves, people will be spending far less time making products work together and more time building tools using tools (rather than the raw materials of machine language, etc). As a direct result of this, people will be developing for solely for environments. We already see this now with
By focusing on the desktop alone (and abandoning the server market), Microsoft can force Linux developers and supporters to focus their attention on the server side and while they fight amongst themselves for dominance, Microsoft can effectively move away from the server market and further entrench themselves in the desktop market/environment and effectively split computer science education into server side development and client side development.
Microsoft DOES need to embrace the inevitable otherwise risk losing it all. But they must also throw out a large enough bone for the open source community to fight over to effectively remove their attention from their combined enemy and allow Microsoft to steal one last toy and make their getaway.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't say it in so many words, but from your post I get the feeling that you're under the impression that Linux is effecting the total number of copies of Windows sold. I doubt this is true-- the raw number keeps going up. It's the proportion of the market that uses Windows that's going down, if only so slightly yet, as many people switch to Linux. The profits, however, are made on the total number of copies sold, not the market share.
My apologies if that's not what you intended to say. I don't mean this post to be argumentative.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why do so many people care about market share?
Microsoft's profits on per-unit sales of Windows is debatable. Keep in mind how fluid pricing is for large customers. Also keep in mind what came to light about OEM pricing from "Windows Refund Day" and Microsoft's court battles. The sale of Windows isn't important.
What is important is the USE of Windows. Microsoft needs a (somewhat) homogenous platform that they control. This enables them to push their techical agenda (which in itself isn't a bad thing). Doing this not only enables them to develop technology on their own terms, but it helps ensure its THEIR products being deployed. But it's not the per-unit sale of enterprise applications either. It's licensing. Enter the CAL (Client Access License). A server application that might cost a few thousand may end up generating millions in user licensing.
The key to that money is becoming the gatekeeper. Once one is in such a position, every user is a nominal fee. And those fees add up. If you look at Microsoft's new businesses... from the Xbox to
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:4, Insightful)
or through government or business contracts who also get HUGE discounts.
And get even BIGGER discounts if they're smart enough to put a Tux plush toy on the corner of their desk while negotiating.
In the short term, that's perhaps the biggest danger to Microsoft's desktop revenues. Linux may not be making major inroads on the desktop, but it is forcing Microsoft to cut their prices -- sometimes dramatically -- in order to keep from losing market share.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
Since Microsoft has never TRULY dominated the server market (at least not in
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's software isn't what perpetuates it's monopoly it's their utter disregard for interoperability something that companies like IBM, and other's are pushing really really hard right now.
The sad thing is that Microsoft never acheived total standardization, their products didn't have perfect backwards compatability and therefore customers
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically they'll never move beyond the Windows/Office market (which is saturated already).
Anyway, I don't want them to embrace Linux, I want them to fail. They've abused their dominance and deserve to decline.
Ahhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ahhh (Score:3, Funny)
Clippy getting a blowjob. Thanks. That's just the image I need in my mind.
Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with him that the greatest threat that Microsoft faces is the unwillingness to destroy its existing business to create a new business.
Why won't Microsoft bring Office to Linux? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
Why hasn't Microsoft gone ahead with a truly revolutionary approach to a MediaPlayer or Handheld? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
It is about keeeping the Windows business going. Think about it, how many differnet flavors of "Windows" have we seen for totally different uses and platforms?
Yours,
Jordan
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hafta take issue here....umm.. do you actually think that anybody in the Slashdot community would use Office if it were ported over to Linux? (I would, I don't mind Office as much as I dislike Windows, but I think I'm in a clear minority...)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Office were on Linux I could port all my end users to Linux without issue.
I completely agree. Think about everything that your average user uses their computer for. You get internet/email and office, and a couple other programs such as Quicken... and games.
If you have Office, it makes it so much easier for the user because instead of having to learn ALL new programs, they just have to use a different internet browser.
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
And it will only run as root.
Maybe even only in single user mode.
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS Office was ported to Linux, do you think it would operate in the same way? With the same features? I've seen other applications ported from Windows to Linux and the Linux version did not have nearly the same capabilities. For example, IM clients like AIM and Yahoo Messenger. The Linux ports of those apps are a bit different from the Windows versions. They may have less bugs (perhaps), but the application itself has a d
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why Microsoft MUST make every program as monolithic as it can, in spite of all techical evidence that an opposite way would be simpler and cost effective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the squeeze play problem and its a very serious problem from a business perspective. For the lazy, if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it crowd you've got this unwillingness to upgrade. Then on the other side you've got the geeks who want the latest t
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no. You *had* someone who did that for you. Then they left. Now, you just have someone who sort of knows how to make little changes but has no real idea of how things work. Most software like this is just one big kludge. Of course, that's the Wrong (TM) way to do it, but it's also the way that they are doing it.
So long as the switching costs are (perceived) higher than the current Microsoft tax, they wil
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in the Windows world, where users are used to paying exorbitant fees for software, Office would still be in trouble without OEM deals, bundling, and other reductions. Without those, and in a market used to getting software for free, the prospects can't look good...
Re: Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Office for Linux was out, I'd bet good money it would sell well.
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too late for me. I would have liked to use Microsoft Office ten years ago, but there was no version for AmigaOS. I probably couldn't have afforded it anyway, the price was pretty high for a highschool student. At the university using LaTeX was a requirement for some of our exercises. I still use LaTeX and is satisified with it. Plaintext works well with version control systems, and you don't have
Many would use MS Office in Linux. (Score:5, Informative)
In a recent thread about OpenOffice, (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/13/1339
OpenOffice's storage format is not
However, OpenOffice is a great tool to give to developers, IT staff, and anyone else that does not have to collaborate with clients, executives, and managers by passing around Word
The lack of full
2) Assonine developers that insist on perpetuating Microsoft's browser monopoly and closed standards that use Internet Explorer only technologies to deliver their content. (ActiveX tops my list here). Unfortunately, to do my business, I am unable to boycott all of these sites.
3) The MS Exchange connector tools for Linux email clients are not yet capable of dealing with some of the features of Exchange / BackOffice that are leveraged by my employer.
Re:Many would use MS Office in Linux. (Score:3, Informative)
1. Whenever a vendor sends me an MS-format file, I always send it back and ask for a portable format. Sure, I could open it with OOo, but these guys are trying to get me to give them money. They can work for it. And I do enjoy the confused reactions from salespeople who don't know that non-MS systems even exist.
2. All desktops at my organization have OOo installed, even if MS Office is too. I can send out documents and kno
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
There may be more Linux users than Mac users now, but I believe and I'm sure their market research must show, that a much smaller percentage of Linux users would actually purchase and use Office.
Unpossible (Score:5, Insightful)
But they can't; how precisely can Microsoft remain a profitable publicly traded company while embracing open source? Their software is all they have.
IBM was in a fortunate position of being a major hardware vendor and therefore capable of switching revenue stream focus.
But Microsoft?
Can anyone else imagine Microsoft five years from now being known more and more as that company that makes really nice mice and peripherals?
Look at Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Look at Novell? (Score:3, Interesting)
I figure that the whole point of standardizing
In other words, I think Mr. Softy has had the baleful eye on the wall for some time now, and steps are well underway to protect the soft, white underbelly.
Re:Unpossible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unpossible (Score:2, Insightful)
Wishful thinking.
What about this [microsoft.com], this [msn.com], this [microsoft.com], this [microsoft.com]
Re:Unpossible (Score:3, Insightful)
1st Article (Score:3, Informative)
Martin LaMonica
CNET News.com
October 18, 2004, 09:40 BST
A US management guru has advised Microsoft to acquire Research in Motion and pay closer attention to open-source projects on mobile devices, or face oblivion. Management guru Clayton Christensen has a paradoxical answer for Microsoft to the challenge posed by open source: invest in Linux applications for handheld devices. Christensen, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, is the author of the 1997 "Innovator's Dilemma," a book that describes how good companies often fail because business managers don't embrace "disruptive" technologies. Open source is a clear disruption to Microsoft and the software industry in general, Christensen told attendees at the Future Forward technology conference here on Thursday.
"Where Linux takes root is in new applications, like Web servers and handheld devices. As those get better, applications will get sucked off the desktop onto the Internet, and that's what will undo Microsoft," he said. The software company can respond to this market disruption by setting up a separate business that will "kill Microsoft," Christensen said. If it doesn't react to the rise of Linux desktops on handheld computers, it will miss a coming wave of new applications and market opportunities, he said. Microsoft has already conceded that open-source software poses a significant challenge to its business. The company could not be immediately reached for comment on Christensen's remarks.
Christensen has observed that companies regularly stumble when they follow the well-established management practices of planning and listening to customers. To succeed, companies should not only cater to customers and continue improving their existing products, he argues. They should also set up separate business units to capitalise on new technologies, even though these may be poor-quality, low-margin products. Digital Equipment, for example, grew rapidly in the late 1980s by selling mini computers, which were a simpler, lower-cost option to mainframes, he said. But when other PCs began to take hold, the company didn't pursue that market for economic reasons: PCs offered substantially lower profit margins and didn't meet the technical needs of existing mini-computer customers.
In Microsoft's case, Linux applications on handheld devices are a threat to its lucrative business of selling desktop PC applications for its Windows operating system. "As computing becomes Internet-centric, rather than LAN (local-area network)-centric, their stuff runs on Linux, because it's all new," he said. He noted that people increasingly leave their laptop PCs at home when they travel and instead rely on handheld devices, such as Research In Motion's BlackBerry. Linux also provides a cheap, commoditylike alternative to Windows -- the basis of Microsoft's business. Although Linux didn't use to be as functional as Windows or Unix, adoption of the operating system grew rapidly because it met the needs of simple applications and is relatively cheap. A similar dynamic is now occurring in the database market with open-source products such as MySQL, Christensen said.
Christensen said that Microsoft should move progressively into Linux applications over the next six or seven years, because that sector will offer better opportunities for growth than operating systems or databases. He suggested that Microsoft acquire Research In Motion to accelerate the move, rather than continue to invest in making Windows run better on handheld devices. "As the BlackBerry becomes more capable, applications will get sucked onto it. Those are kind of places where growth is," he said. "If Microsoft catches it, they'll be all right."
What this love will consist of (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the above will receive scant support and will be axed after one release. A MS spokesman will cite 'no interest' for the reason even though the half-baked, shitty software and uncertain future has more to do with it.
Re:What this love will consist of (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be Mono then.
to allow Linux to be a node in network managed by XP.
And that one would be Samba!
New 'Services for Linux', half-baked Linux layer for NT.
Or how about Services for UNIX? Already up to version 3.5. Apart from that a very reasoned out comment.
Re:What this love will consist of (Score:4, Interesting)
Such a thing is hardly insurmountable to do either, but I suspect if it ever did appear it would be buggered up beyond recognition (e.g. not supporting the LSB properly). I base my experiences on the SFU which is traumatic to install and lacklustre to run in equal measure. Cygwin beats the living crap out of it.
Of course if Microsoft had a clue about doing this properly, they'd try to make User Mode Linux working on top of XP. Done properly it would be less traumatic to install, would be self contained, would be as-near-as-dammit a true Linux environment and might earn them a few brownie points in the process.
Interesting article, but (Score:5, Interesting)
But it seems wierd that the guest speaker at an event hosted by Research In Motion [rim.net] would advise Microsoft to purchase Research in Motion.
That seems a little, um, strange.
Two bits (Score:5, Interesting)
2) What's stopping MS from having a non-GPL applications layer which enables them to deply Office and whatever they'd want on THEIR linux. Assume they'd charge a little under the standard distro's, or even include it in the cost of Office for Linux.
The only hassle will be hiding the DRM for said Office where it can't be seen/modified - so it can't go in the kernel, etc. Could a binary loadable MS Driver do this for them?
Re:Two bits (Score:2, Funny)
Been out for almost a year!!!
Re:Two bits (Score:5, Insightful)
You really need to read Clayton Christensen's book. In it he describes how the old technology company keeps on asking its customers "do you need this new technology (e.g. Linux)" and the customers keep on saying no, we don't, because the new technology is so disruptive that it comes with its own set of customers.
For example while M$ is busy asking corporate IT if they want Linux and OpenOffice instead of WinXP and MS Office, and they keep on hearing that no, they don't.
Meanwhile average joe blow keeps on buying RIM blacberry's at a rate of a million per quarter, and suddenly you have a widely deployed platform. And yes, it turns out joe blow does want Linux and OpenOffice in his blackberry.
So the "business need" never arose. M$ customers never asked for it. It was the non-customers who took over.
Re:Two bits (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL in Linux only applies to the modifications to OS itself. Tons of companies release commercial soft for Linux: Oracle, BEA,
And it would not be hard technically because the y produce native ports of their soft to OS X every day.
Re:Two bits (Score:3)
Re:Two bits (Score:2)
Re:Two bits (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it likely that they have a distribution that is release worthy just sitting on the shelf? I highly doubt it.
Re:Two bits (Score:3, Insightful)
Obvious, thanks a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like another poster said that they fear it would undercut their Windows business. Why would there be an Office for Mac?
So in conclusion, thanks for telling me the world isn't flat, Mr. Christensen
Re:Obvious, thanks a lot (Score:3, Insightful)
bend over Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Early days yet (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Microsoft would have to play a lot of consecutive bad hands before they'll cede their desktop stranglehold.
Re:Early days yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Disruptive technologies creep on you very fast. One day they are laggards offering much inferior products and competing against well established monopolies, and then a few years later the old monopoly is gone and the new technology has taken over.
All your comments above applied equally to IBM. They had an
Lessons from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not Adapting? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Criticized of security problems
-- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux
Re: Not Adapting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Not Adapting? (Score:3, Informative)
Err...Apache remains the number one web server; most of the time when you are looking at a web page, it is served via Apache. Now, if you are limiting to the desktop market, then no, open source is unproven as a mainstream source of desktop software. Open source will continue to be mainstream in servers and workstations. Note how Microsoft is having to add open source auditability to their software to wo
The Blackberry is not a Linux device (Score:5, Interesting)
But Research In Motion's Blackberry is not any kind of free-software platform. It runs yet another proprietary operating system, requiring (at the moment) proprietary development tools. It has nothing to offer over Windows CE (except possibly quality of implementation).
Re:The Blackberry is not a Linux device (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you are making the same mistake as DEC and other such companies described by Clayton in his book: "how could the PC ever replace mainframes? it doesn't have enough memory, it has no access to tapes where all the data resides" etc.
The mistake you are making is that you are comparing today's incarnation of an ascending technology (blackberry) with a highly mature platform (PC). By the time the blackberry has gone through a few iterations it will come with holographic keyboard and retina-projection screen.
Will RIM employees still get to (Score:4, Funny)
Dvorak vs Christensen (Score:4, Informative)
Dvorak Out Of Touch (Score:3, Insightful)
"John Dvorak put it better than I could when he wrote a piece ome time back"
I disagree - that link sounds like more of Dvorak talking out his ass again. Example:
"The closest Christensen comes to a real disruptive technology is digital photography. But it was invented in 1972 and has never been "cheaper" than film."
In what universe? The Land That Time Forgot? My digital camera saved me more than the cost of the camera itself within 6 months of purchasing it! The cost of a 36-exposure roll of film
Re:Dvorak Out Of Touch (Score:3, Informative)
It's worth putting up with the occasional rant as he can be prophetic.
Back in the day there was a time when every single pc on this earth was beige, the internet was being written in cern, and there was no modding to speak of.
He predicted that colored and decorated computers would become popular. Obvious now, but I didn't see how it
Stop helping the beast. (Score:5, Insightful)
signed,
A guy who does not miss macro viruses. (or any viruses for that matter.)
How to kill Linux MS Style. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How to kill Linux MS Style. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. The problem, however, is that once you've fixed it, you have to shout louder than Microsoft to let people know that you've fixed it. Shout louder than Microsoft? Good luck.
And, sadly, doing this would not violate the GPL at all as long as the broken Linux was given away. As far as I'm aware the GPL doesn't specify any minimum quality requirement for permitted distribution. The type of attack described is, actually, a very real possibility and something which should be guarded against.
MS interest in RIM seems natural enough.... (Score:4, Funny)
Anti-trust? Too popular. (Score:3, Interesting)
But portible devices are just too popular, and someone else will step up. There may be some patents to get around, but MSFT might face an anti-trust suit if it tried to enforce them.
That Gandhi quote (Score:4, Funny)
What if.... (Score:3, Informative)
OK, they've lost money on it. But if they suddenly switch half the Linux community to Microsoft Linux (never thought I'd say those two words together!) they then control that market too.
in a nutshell (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is to Microsoft today
what Microsoft was to IBM/OS in the 80's:
A cheap low quality alternative.
Seems fate is not without a sense of irony.
Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
Listen to your customers--no don't--no do (Score:4, Insightful)
Christensen tells you not to listen to your customers too much.
Drucker says that above all you must listen to your customers.
Peters says you must have a corporate culture in place and it's more important that you follow the values of the corporate culture than what those values happen to be.
I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the current that stress how vital it is to deliberately piss off and drive away the customers that are costing you money (e.g. by asking for tech support)...
Whatever you feel like doing with your customers, you can find a management "expert" to back you up.
Microsoft == Poor Quality (Score:3)
The IT guys where I work have figured it out: The only way to keep Microsoft products stable and secure is to run them as little as possible and to severely restrict what can be run and where they can go. Even then most of IT's time is spent trying to keep the Windows boxes working. Why? Because Microsoft makes and markets garbage, it's their business model: Just good enough to get the cash from the suckers who are fooled by a pretty GUI. Make the user sign a EULA agreeing that Microsoft isn't responsible for the poor quality of the product and
The only thing Microsoft should be doing in the future is pushing up the proverbial daisy. A fitting end considering that is what Windows machines do best: Sing Daisy.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i hope not (Score:4, Funny)