PDA

View Full Version : Ballmer's false choice: Open source or free soda



corney91
February 10th, 2008, 11:41 PM
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9868659-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1001_3-0-5


I'm not saying open-source is a bad thing, but it doesn't pay the bills in this company, so we can't embrace that way of doing things. ... We give out free soda pop to everybody who works here. We make our stuff free, people gotta give back the soda pop -- it's just inconsistent with what we do around here.

Thoughts?

p_quarles
February 10th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Hmm. I believe he did actually call it a cancer at one point. Does that mean he doesn't think cancer is a bad thing?

Polygon
February 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
like all the news articles says, his understanding of open source is flawed. Open source software seems to pay the bills for a lot of companies, why not microsoft?

k2t0f12d
February 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
Microsoft has no other super-profit product besides Windows and the software technology tied to it. The next closest thing is Xbox, whose hardware's reliability is sketchier then Hirschfeld on crack. Surface is currently only unaffordable vapor so far. Those certainly won't be enough to support the Microsoft Empire in the 21st century. Without severe, and worldwide, fascism against human rights with respect towards information and technology, Microsoft's business model will inevitably fail.

Washer
February 10th, 2008, 11:58 PM
He doesn't get it, or he's just FUDing, but you know except for games I couldn't care less. I havent' booted windows in like 6 months except to play games once every other week. What tech does Windows have that'll benefit me if he open sources it?

corney91
February 11th, 2008, 12:04 AM
I liked the last paragraph;
But it's yesterday's model, for yesterday's companies. Microsoft might have noticed that it hasn't proved to be relevant in any of the 21st Century's businesses. Its bid for Yahoo! won't change this unless Microsoft changes the way it views its software business.
I think it gives hope to projects like Ubuntu:)

Washer
February 11th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Same goes for all these evangelical "convert everyoen to linux" movements. We're probably well into diminishing returns by now. More newbs just use up support time bandwidth & real bandwidth.

fatality_uk
February 11th, 2008, 12:10 AM
Microsoft business model is based on box sales. It wont EVER embrace Open Source and why should it? He's right in the respect that the size MS is, there's no way it could run a OpenSource model. If I were him, OpenSource would simple be another opportunity for people to eat into MS's market share.

let's eat people ;)

pjkoczan
February 11th, 2008, 12:17 AM
like all the news articles says, his understanding of open source is flawed. Open source software seems to pay the bills for a lot of companies, why not microsoft?

It pays my bills (admin and consulting).

speedwell68
February 11th, 2008, 01:10 AM
I use Linux because I was presented with a choice. I could either use Linux or use pirated software, because I couldn't afford to but the software to do the things I wanted to do. So for me It was Linux all the way. But why is Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates seen as almost satanic figures in the IT industry? Lets face it I doubt very few people on this forum started out using Linux as there OS. I bet most of you started as Windows users.

corney91
February 11th, 2008, 01:16 AM
I use Linux because I was presented with a choice. I could either use Linux or use pirated software, because I couldn't afford to but the software to do the things I wanted to do. So for me It was Linux all the way. But why is Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates seen as almost satanic figures in the IT industry? Lets face it I doubt very few people on this forum started out using Linux as there OS. I bet most of you started as Windows users.

I don't deny that Microsoft are a good business - they seemed to do the right things to get 90% of the market share. But I really don't like the product (Windows, not Xbox) it's sooo slow and I guess unexciting is the best word to describe it for me.

el_ricardo
February 11th, 2008, 01:33 AM
an opensource version of windows exists in the form of reactOS lol .... almost anyway

k2t0f12d
February 11th, 2008, 01:37 AM
I don't deny that Microsoft are a good business - they seemed to do the right things to get 90% of the market share. But I really don't like the product (Windows, not Xbox) it's sooo slow and I guess unexciting is the best word to describe it for me.

Vendor lock-in, anti-competition, undocumented API, etc. Great business model, only lacking assassinations to put it on par with the Mafia.

SomeGuyDude
February 11th, 2008, 01:58 AM
If, at any time, open-source software hits the level of commercial, I will be incredibly surprised.

I like all the FOSS I use, but I don't see it ever reaching that. One of the downsides of it, for example, is that if it breaks or the project goes away, I'm SOL. There's no real customer support.

Plus, one of the BEST parts of commercial software that no one's mentioning: bloatware! As a Linux user, I can get a PC cheap as hell because it comes with all this bloatware that just goes away because I'll be reformatting anyway.
:lolflag:

p_quarles
February 11th, 2008, 02:06 AM
If, at any time, open-source software hits the level of commercial, I will be incredibly surprised.
Then you should be surprised by the existence of Apache, MySQL, Firefox, bittorrent, and the Linux kernel itself.

Also, open source and commercial are not mutually exclusive. That's the exact mistake that Ballmer was making in that quote.

cprofitt
February 11th, 2008, 02:14 AM
Microsoft has no other super-profit product besides Windows and the software technology tied to it. The next closest thing is Xbox, whose hardware's reliability is sketchier then Hirschfeld on crack. Surface is currently only unaffordable vapor so far. Those certainly won't be enough to support the Microsoft Empire in the 21st century. Without severe, and worldwide, fascism against human rights with respect towards information and technology, Microsoft's business model will inevitably fail.


Do you see the same fate for Apple?

I also am curious where I can download the source code to Google search engine...


Of course, this obscures the fact that Google and others happily build businesses on open source and make Microsoft-esque profits.

Perhaps the source code is out there, but I think the author of this article is a bit confused. I know they have opened their database and published an API, but is the source code for how they scrub/crawl/etc available? Is the source code to the API available?

TeaSwigger
February 11th, 2008, 03:11 AM
Microsoft has no other super-profit product besides Windows and the software technology tied to it.

While your point does have substantial merit, I feel I should point out that MicroSoft has its fingers in so many pies it's more than a bit like "the majors" of the music industry; no matter how bad it does, no matter how negative its policies, they are too honkin' big to die or even adjust naturally to a solid market share. For example, their latest promotions seem to be tied with FORD in proprietizing electronic peripherals for cars. So that they're now pre-installed not only on PCs and laptops, but in cars. That's without accounting for their very wide ranging "interests" in other companies. Alas, they look to be quite deeply entrenched, no matter what Windows does.

k2t0f12d
February 11th, 2008, 03:28 AM
If, at any time, open-source software hits the level of commercial, I will be incredibly surprised.

I like all the FOSS I use, but I don't see it ever reaching that. One of the downsides of it, for example, is that if it breaks or the project goes away, I'm SOL. There's no real customer support.

Except you could hire a programmer, or group of programmers, to do maintenance on said software. If a proprietary software company goes out of business then you are SOL. Your point also completely ignores the fact that the more useful the software is the less likely it will be that it will become abandonware.


Plus, one of the BEST parts of commercial software that no one's mentioning: bloatware! As a Linux user, I can get a PC cheap as hell because it comes with all this bloatware that just goes away because I'll be reformatting anyway.

I build 'em cheap as hell with no bloatware.


Do you see the same fate for Apple?

You are mistaken. I "see" no fate. What I described is a relationship between the success or failure of Microsoft's business model and human rights regarding information and technology. My predication being that as technology grows, the mutual exclusivity between them becomes more apparent. If Apple's business model has the same properties, yes, if not, no. Its that simple.


I also am curious where I can download the source code to Google search engine...

That's is a great question with a very foolish predication. Google is doing exaclty what Stallman suggested could be done, that is, provide non-free services with free software. If they aren't distributing software that you install and use on your computer, they are not abriging your rights, or any of the four freedoms of free software by not providing any source code.


Perhaps the source code is out there, but I think the author of this article is a bit confused. I know they have opened their database and published an API, but is the source code for how they scrub/crawl/etc available? Is the source code to the API available?

This is precisely the problem with the open source/free software split. While free software has a problem (in English) with obviously differentiating gratis from freedom, open source has a problem with differentiating human rights from the availability of source code. People see "open source" and assume that the extent to which their rights apply is their ability to see the code. The only code you have should have absolute rights to see (according to open source or free software) is that which has been distributed for installation and execution on hardware you own and control. If the software Google uses to operate their search engine is licensed under the terms of the GPL and you come into possesion of a copy and install it on your computer, then you have a reason to ask for source, not before.

None of which applies to any software Google distributes to users, of course. If you install a program distributed by Google, you should have code if said program is licensed under free terms. Otherwise it is non-free software, which takes the argument back to that which started with Microsoft.

Jay Jay
February 11th, 2008, 03:31 AM
But why is Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates seen as almost satanic figures in the IT industry?

Probably due to their behaviour right from the days of selling a rebranded pirated product to IBM that allegedly contained the copyright notices of the original programmer (http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_1.html). That story is just the tip of the iceberg...



Vendor lock-in, anti-competition, undocumented API, etc. Great business model, only lacking assassinations to put it on par with the Mafia.

Exactly, Microsoft's products have never been the best in terms of quality, they have been the best marketed and "sold" with extreme strongarm tactics that impress even Vito Corleone.


I bet most of you started as Windows users.

That's true, however most of us started out as Windows users under duress, thanks to Gates' "marketing strategies", unless you build a machine yourself, apart from a few exceptions you can't buy a PC without his OS pre-installed, even people who bought a computer with Win and then replaced it with Linux technically started out as "Windows users" lol

jrusso2
February 11th, 2008, 03:31 AM
Free sugar water given away at Microsoft. Sounds great sign me up for some.

k2t0f12d
February 11th, 2008, 03:35 AM
Unrelated point, sugar, especially processed sugar, taken in liquid form in the quantities distributed in soda-pop is poison.