Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2 472
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Convergence isn't new to Microsoft at all. It's how they've conducted business all along. The reason that Microsoft has succeeded all these years is that they brought something to that marketplace that it really wanted - ease of use. Everything was integrated together in one clean way. Windows was "great", but what really made Microsoft great was OLE and COM and XML. Hook stuff together and make it work and people will pay big bucks. You may not agree, but the marketplace doesn't want to have to think about which UI they want to install or whether it will work with every application. Most people just want stuff to work. (Yeah, I know, this is /. and that we love to build things, but let's face it, we're not "the norm".)
So what's the future of integration? Well, I'd say that unlike Microsoft's vision of throwing everything into one box, we're going to see a pattern of "divergence" away from all-in-one devices. The pattern of convergence has been seen before, like the all-in-one VCR/TV or all-in-one entertainment centers, that have had limited success. If my Windows Media Center PC dies, do I really want to lose my ability to surf the web, play games, pay my bills, and do my homework all at the same time?
What Microsoft is missing is that the integration point isn't in a single box, but in a single network. Bill has already admitted to missing the Internet in 1995, and that's because in his world we bring everything to one place and control it there. But the reality of the situation is that different devices serve different functions for a reason. Sure I can build a PC that does everything, but is that what I really want? Or do I just want to have my different devices talk to each other (and my friend's devices) and share information? Not that I necessarily want to live in the Java world where my toaster tells my fridge that it's toasting the last slice of bread and to order more, but it sure would be nice if I could do something as simple as have my phone exchange contact information with my PC on my desk without having to dock it. That's a far cry from the Microsoft world where I hold my PC to my head to make a phone call because I have to store all my data in one place. At least then I can get more than 30 minutes of talk time on my phone because the CPU isn't sucking up power yet adding no value to the call in progress.
Convergence bad. Interoperability good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Convergence is good in the sense, as you said, of everything just working together and not having to deal with mixing and matching and fine tuning your solutions. That is what customers want, and I agree, it's a Good Thing.
What is bad is the way that MS and most everybody else has been going about it: the approach of "everybody wants their word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software to work together, so we
heh (Score:4, Funny)
Just like the tabacco industry!
Re:heh (Score:5, Interesting)
(Thanks Barney, Elmo)
Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)
Just like a drug dealer:
Step 1: Here, try this free Windows you got with your new computer!
Step 2: Here, make all your applications with Access databases and Excel spreadsheets and ActiveX and COM+! Feels GOOD, doesn't it?
Step 3: Here it will only cost you X dollars to upgrade to this better grade of drug^H^H^H^HWindows!
Step 4: Profit!
Step 5: Monopoly profit!
Step 6: Shoot competing drug^H^H^H^Hsoftware dealers.
Step 7: Arrest, conviction of monopoly status, prison!
I'm waiting for step 7, George...
Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:heh (Score:4, Interesting)
But the game's not the same anymore. Information is widespread, and first-time computer buyers are better informed. Cross-platform habits are becoming the norm (even QuickTime reads
With the market the way it is today, Microsoft is going to have to innovate or die just like everybody else - and it's exactly in the innovation department where they're lacking. I'll start the popcorn - who brought the beer?
Are you for real?? (Score:4, Interesting)
As soon as I heard of it (about 6 years ago) I had to have a go, installing Slackware from diskette on an IBM thinkpad (Pentium-S, the S is for Slow I think!). IF only because I fancied messing about with partitions and seeing if I could reinstall windows.
As far as career development goes I'd have thought some *nix|*BSD|MacOSX experience was essential.
But hey, no-one offered me a job so I s'pose I got it bass-ackwards.
Seriously I'm not trying to offend but I can't actually believe I saw your post on Slashdot.
The problem is internal (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS diversified more and didn't obsess over absolutely dominating the industry, they wouldn't be such the target. As it is, they are the "Evil Empire" and the Huns and Mongols getting hungry and sharpening their swords.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:4, Informative)
Diversified more??
Come on, MS is already in:
- Gaming
- TV
- Internet
- Computer
- Telephones
- Handhelds
And several others I do not know... they only need to have their own cereal!
If Microsoft concentrated in doing ONE thing (ok, two or three things) right, THEN he would not have all these problems.
Microsoft SHOULD specificaly work on Microsoft Windows AND Microsoft Office. Make them lot a hell better (For example, at least allowing to quickly change the pointer type when I am making a presentation, instead of showing the right-click menu); that way they will be seen better.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:3)
Re:The problem is internal (Score:2)
Re:The problem is internal (Score:4, Insightful)
Those two things are the only real money makers. Everything else runs at a loss, barely breaks even, or barely makes a profit. The markets for Office and Windows are mature and can't grow very much no matter what MS does; the only real direction those two markets can go is down. No matter how much MS improves those two products, it can only maintain marketshare at best. What is worse for them is that improvements in lower priced alternatives means they have to lower prices. OOO won't go away no matter how much they lower prices. I shouldn't have to paint that picture any further.
Furthermore, vexation at the shenanigans they use their marketshare to pull is only growing. MS is addicted to infinitely growing dominant marketshares in Office and MS and will do ANYTHING to keep that. "ANYTHING" is daily creating implacable enemies. Stories of large customers migrating from MS are even starting to get boring.
My point is that if MS has their fingers in lots of moderately profitable pies then they don't set themselves up as "the enemy" who is in perpetual need of being knocked off. In the long run, decent profits in lot of markets is better than obscene profits in only two.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:3, Insightful)
MS isn't the only area where this is a problem. We see it throughout culture (especially in American culture). Why else do you think there is such a problem in the corporate world of ever increasing "sharholder value" causing CEO's to violate laws and wind up in prison? T
Re:The problem is internal (Score:2)
so, therefore - they have no recurring revenue. they need to constantly churn out "updates" to their flagships.
they dont have a consulting rev stream to fall back on, and their hardware sales are a joke.
we're about to see a renaissance of mid-80's style computing. all-in-one brand-name devices that dont all run the exact same thing. think c64, apple iie, whatever that crapp atari had out.1
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The problem is internal (Score:5, Insightful)
The obsession and drive from Ballmer and Gates are still there, my point is that the engine that pushes the Microsoft race car forward needs a serious valve job.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:4, Insightful)
And that "obsession and drive" is actually why Microsoft will never change unless both Bill and Steve go down in a plane somewhere...
And THAT is why Microsoft is going to go down...because their management CAN'T change like IBM's did - despite all the talk about "never count Bill out" which is bullshit. He's the world's richest guy - where is his motivation to change? Look at every statement out of his mouth! NOTHING has changed about the way he does business!
Re:The problem is internal (Score:5, Insightful)
I will HAPPILY use Microsoft Software 24 hours a day if you meet these following requirements:
1. Protect my privacy.
2. Protect my systems security.
3. Open your damn source-code, so I can be assured that you have done your due-dilligence for #1 and #2 and that I can be assured that the software will move forward after I incur the considerable expense of adopting it, that I can trust that the software won't be discontinued or abandoned, or taken in an unpalatable architectural direction.
4. Open your damn internal Development and Test Procedures to independent audit (ie, become ISO-9001 certified) - so I can be assured that you have done your due-dilligence for #1 and #2.
5. Don't charge me an arm and a leg. (I'm willing to PAY for excellence. I'm not willing to pay for mediocrity, with an "excellence" sticker slapped on, while you tell me with a straigh face "trust me, it's excellent!" - all while the world's computer systems crash and burn around us from vulnerabilities and flaws). If it's mediocre software, I will pay mediocre (free/beer) prices.
6. I own my data. Let me do whatever the hell I want to with my data. (ie. open your file-formats, and stop trying to ram DRM down my throat).
7. Stop buying and trashing other independent software vendors through predatory practices. If you satisfy 1-6, above, I still can't trust that a monopoly with no real competition, has any incentive to continue to do so.
If you do that, I'll happily use Microsoft Software 24 hours a day, and I'll even pay to purchase (not rent) it.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is internal (Score:2)
It would be really great, though. I blame M$ completely for all the spyware, adware, and other CRAP that can appear on your system just by mistyping a single URL, ev
Re:The problem is internal (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they can't talk their employees into working past sunset all weekend long like in the 90s... but then again, no company has been able to do that since the
Microsoft's shitty security has been a result of a short-sighted lack of emphasis, not capacity. Now that they are making it a priority, I have no doubt that Longhorn will be a relatively secure OS.
Whenever it arrives, that is. Meanwhile... fuck it, I'm using OS X.
Re:The problem is internal (Score:2, Interesting)
uh, EA? Well, I suppose they don't "talk" their employees into it anymore, more like threaten...
The problem is the market. (Score:2)
MS new marketing campaign. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS new marketing campaign. (Score:2)
You must be surely joking. Windows-compatible - yes, that's a good selling point. But Windows-powered? Even among Windows users - or even people who are actively anti-Linux or anti-Apple - nobody really advocates virtues of Windows as such. The key virtues are abundance of software and great hardware support (and then again, even the most pro-Linux or pro-Apple guys cannot deny them). But there is no positive
and I quote: (Score:2)
-Bill Gates
So longhorn isn't due out for a year or so or two or three. They expect their customers to wait that long? This shouldn't be such a complicated issue.
Re:and I quote: (Score:2)
The Red Screen of Death will most likely be the big give-away.
Re:and I quote: (Score:5, Funny)
-Bill Gates
That just might possibly dethrone the 640kb crack. I know, I know, it isn't what he meant and is misconstrued. THIS little gem is fairly unambigous. Yes, let's remember it.
Re:and I quote: (Score:3, Interesting)
-Bill Gates
That just might possibly dethrone the 640kb crack. I know, I know, it isn't what he meant and is misconstrued. THIS little gem is fairly unambigous. Yes, let's remember it.
The important thing to note here are the crucial words "without the users' knowledge" - Bill isn't promising that there will be no ma
Re:and I quote: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:and I quote: (Score:3, Funny)
Security is complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Computer literacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
And it takes a fairly computer-literate user to install and maintain the open source operating system on a personal computer.
I read this and instantly started thinking about this exactly how many window users can maintain there windows box properly? 90% of the users out there have no idea how to keep there windows updated, how to reinstall windows. The only difference is that Windows came preloaded on their machines. Now this is the only difference between the two operating systems. If a Linux machine came preloaded on a computer already with all the drivers installed it is the same exact thing on how people get their machines from dell.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
By default the OS will keep itself updated, checking for updates and installing them, or prompting you to install them. Turning that off causes a little "You're at risk" icon to appear in the toolbar. Home users just see the updates come down and install.
To reinstall it's put the restore CD in the drive and boot. Normally that will load up the correct 3rd party drivers as the PC manufacturer has put those into the restore process.
Users don't need or want to know how to do these things, but if it becomes necessary it shouldn't take more than 5 keypresses.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently not even Sir William H. Gates III can [eweek.com]*. He has been hit by malware and spyware in the past.
*Details in the fifth paragraph.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's more to malware than just viruses.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:2)
I consider myself fairly computer savvy. I have a box doing a software raid with 4x80GB drives. I had to migrate it to another machine when the old motherboard died. I set up RH 8 or 9. I still haven't gotten samba working to where I can access the machine from my windows machines. I tried setting up webmin to set up samba in turn, but webmin isn't
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:2, Funny)
Insert Knoppix LiveCD. Hold down power button 5 seconds. Press power button once more.
The sad thing is that yeah, that does sound too complicated for the average user.
Malware (Score:3, Funny)
microsoft is done (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in. Unearned revenue continues to go down, and Linux continues to gain marketshare. Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock. When that happens Microsoft is going to *look* vulnerable. Right now the folks selling for Red Hat and Novell have to convince their clients that they aren't crazy when they forgo the safe path of purchasing Windows. Folks that roll out Linux solutions are still taking a fairly big risk. They are betting on a David facing up against the biggest Goliath in the history of industry, and the reason that the story of David and Goliath made it into the Bible was because in real life David's get squashed. Everyone likes an underdog, but only when they win.
A serious drop in MSFT would be hitting the behemoth right smack between the eyes, and such a drop is overdue.
ttm? (Score:3, Informative)
What, exactly, is impressive in your book?
MSFT is the GM of the computer world. It will NEVER go away (unless America, somehow, goes away).
Spin-offs (Score:2)
Having said that, I'll concede that this won't happen until both Gates and Balmer retire, but it won't take too terribly long after that, either.
The cure is worse than the disease... (Score:5, Insightful)
By using TCPA to lock out all non Microsoft authorized software & just coincidentally eliminate the open software threat to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Sorry, I refuse to play along...
Re:The cure is worse than the disease... (Score:3, Insightful)
If, however, someone else decides for you then it would be a very, very bad thing. Fuck that.
Re:The cure is worse than the disease... (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft v. Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
My father works for the local power company developing customer support systems. Rather than an Open Source alternative, such as Linux, they opted to go with Microsoft Windows. The reason? Costs. They figured that the TCO of Linux, including support, training developers, etc. would actually be more expensive than the licensing fees that a Windows solution would incur.
This being said, I would have personally gone with a Linux setup. I think that the former situation exemplifies one of the biggest misconceptions about Linux: people think that, because it's not provided by a corporation, if you have a problem, you're screwed. That's why the support services provided by Red Hat and IBM are so vital. Corporations can't just go on a developer's word that their system works well. They need someone that they can sue if something goes hugely wrong and they lose everything due to an operating system glitch. Red Hat provides a much-needed corporate backing to an already-great operating system. Most of the misconceptions out there about Linux are due to FUD spread by MS. If the open source community can simply overcome the stereotypes of Linux as having no support at all, then I think we'll see Linux begin to totally take over MS's marketshare.
Re:Microsoft v. Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm - if they honestly believe they can sue Microsoft for loss of data or, indeed, anything at all, they are sorely mistaken. Have they read the EULA recently? Microsoft are NOT liable for anything that Windows does - their fault or not.
At least with IBM & Linux you have a support framework in place - unlike Windows, where support is patchy at best.
Re:Microsoft v. Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Red-Herring: No-one, I repeat, No-one has ever successfully sued MS for damages after something went hugely wrong due to a bug in Windows. According to the Windows Terms of Use, damages are limited to what was paid for Windows.
Re:Microsoft v. Linux (Score:2)
Well there's that, and then there's the matter of getting hardware manufacturers to open up and let Linux developers start coding some drivers.
And then there's also the matter of getting software companies to start producing Linux versions of their software.
Neither will happen until Linux becomes a worthwhile expenditure of
too funny, as usual (Score:2)
Too funny. Thanks Bill, I needed a laugh. even people who work on reasonably secure systems wouldn't float so much hubris. My niece's little plastic swimming pool is deeper than this man's knowledge of computer security...Well, as vaporware Longhorn is certainly secure.
Re:too funny, as usual (Score:5, Funny)
Nonono.. he's right! (Score:2)
He's not saying that they'll stop malicious software from being installed, he's saying that all malicious software will alert the user that they're being installed..
And how do they do that?
The MS installer will ensure that all non-MS software will present a warning saying that it might be malicious
See? It's easy!
Gates is an idiot (ok, we knew that) (Score:2)
It's not the software that is the problem. The issue is that users will STILL accept anything offered. Install weather toolbars and so on. And the fact that windows make it so ridicilously natural and easy that there simply isn't a different choice.
I don't know what could be the answer. A good approach would be to outlaw internet access to any computer with windows installed.
Re:Gates is an idiot (ok, we knew that) (Score:2)
One of the problems with getting Linux into the mainstream is that it's not easy for the average Mom to install something she actually wants, like a weather toolbar. Some things, in the Windows (XP in particular) environment remain difficult/non-intuitive to mess around with, but those things that the users want to be able to play with have been made reachable and fairly simple to alter. Yes, that's also where t
Double-edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, yeah Bill, we've heard this promise before. I'm not holding my breath over any Microsoft promise that ends with "a thing of the past." The past keeps coming back to haunt you with Windows.
However, let's assume this time Microsoft really, really gets it right. If so, it won't be only malware that has a hard time on your computer. With their Palladium-- er sorry, Next Generatio-- er whatever they call it this week, your own software won't trust you. Can I play this music? Dunno, let's ask Microsoft. Can I see this movie? Dunno, let's ask Microsoft. Or more accurately, let's ask the systems Microsoft has put in place to handle permissioning. Yeah, they can isolate malware, but the means by which they will do this will also isolate your own stuff every time it thinks you do not have permission to run/view it.
Re:Double-edged sword (Score:2, Informative)
Q: I have heard that NGSCB will force people to run only Microsoft-approved software.
A: This is simply not true. The nexus-aware security chip (the SSC) and other NGSCB features are not involved in the boot process of the operating system or in its decision to load an application that does not use the nexus. Because the nexus is not involved in the boot process, it cannot block an operating system or drivers or any nexus-unaware PC application from r
Re:Double-edged sword (Score:2)
This is not just a Microsoft thing - this is the
Again, it comes back to the cash (Score:2)
It will allow them to go through a complete denial cycle. When they finally realize that their business model and software is flawed, they will still have plenty left to turn it around.
The only way MS would be in any danger is if they somehow lost all that money. And the only real way I can see that happening is through legal actions. M
Re:Again, it comes back to the cash (Score:2)
Re:Again, it comes back to the cash (Score:2)
There's optimism, and then there's fantasy land. Wiser heads almost never prevail. PHBs prevail. While the wiser heads are banging their heads agains the wall.
What IS in danger is the "nobody gets fired for buying MS" mentality
No it isn't. And it won't be for a very long time. At least until the baby boomers begin retiring, then who knows? Let me tell you why: Software. If I am a dental office, for example, my choices for office prog
Re:Again, it comes back to the cash (Score:2)
Re:Again, it comes back to the cash (Score:2)
Realistically, we're looking at 10-15 years.
Preventing 'malware' (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
That battle the article missed... (Score:4, Interesting)
I like how they use the word battle. Lately I've been reading a book called The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 [amazon.com]. The book centers around what makes a succesful military revolution. Since they are using the term 'battles' and are in need of a revolution of sorts I'll point out what the book stated.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles. All 6 battles in the article revolve around marketing and technology. It's pretty sad state of affairs when people solely concentrate on technology and the marketing thereof over other aspects. What makes a more successful state of revolution in battle is the coalescing of technology, organization, strategy, internal culture and leadership. I would like to see such an analysis done on Microsoft.
How is M$ leadership?
How is M$ internal culture? Does it have low morale or high hopes for the future?
What is the make up of M$ strategic culture? Do they have any other strategy apart from monopolizing?
Such questions would give a much more accurate picture for the future of M$ success.
Re:That battle the article missed... (Score:4, Informative)
I once worked at Microsoft, so I will answer/reply to these as best as was my personal experience:
I found it to be muddled and lacking in direction. I gave Microsoft high grades for being rather horizontal, so you were never too far removed from important decision makers, but I found a certain neurosis in management because it always felt like there was a certain "fear factor".... i.e., fear of making a wrong move pissing off the wrong people... with whatever consequences... (for the record I wouldn't know what and if those consequences were)
The internal culture is/was as geeky as it gets. I found all around me to be highly intelligent but quite socially disconnected. The morale was generally high, but I wouldn't describe it as high because of realistic views but more from a certain hubris... e.g. (and borrowing from Lilly Tomlin) "We're Microsoft, We don't have to care!" This was right around the beginning of the big DOJ investigation, and the attitude was pretty much "let them come!.... we've done nothing wrong, we're Microsoft!"... I attribute much of this attitude as ripple effect from execs such as Ballmer.
Again I worked there long ago, but I didn't sense much strategic culture, just a "We'll do what it takes to conquer" attitude. I sat in some discussions which eventually led me to leave Microsoft because I didn't feel they played fair. I've posted and commented on this before.
I found Microsoft one of the most dynamic, challenging, and fun places I've ever worked. I enjoyed the high value placed on intellectual sparring. But I finally left because, in my opinion, their intellect wasn't tempered with any humility.
As to how and whether or not they've got what it takes to "win the battle", I'd say if they started out on a level playing field they have nothing over anyone and if they didn't or wouldn't drop the hubris, they would collapse and self-destruct from their own attitude.
NEWS FLASH! (Score:2)
Oh gee, I hadn't heard them claim that before.
Oh wait, I DID.
That's what they said about Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows (put whatever name you want here)
Long story short, Microsoft's software is NOT good, and they can't have the same level of quality that open-source has.
Avoid them at all costs unless you really want to give the more money.
Give your money to open-source projects, at least
Shark Vs. Piranha (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is a shark, at the top of its food chain. It cannot be eaten and cannot be stopped unless it stops itself. It is predictably hungry and efficient. It can take its time and wait.
But it now swims in a sea filled with other fish that are just as ravenous. They can't and won't attack the shark; they don't have to. They'll just eat the same thing the shark eats.
And that food--the market--is in short supply.
Apple, the largest desktop competitor to the "WinTel" market, is no Microsoft, but it doesn't have to be. Microsoft cannot directly attack Apple without causing legal waves as it is already a convicted monopoly. Apple hasn't the capital or mindset in the enterprise to fully cause an IT schism where businesses move in droves to Mac OS workstations and servers. But it can erode the reputation of the larger opponent by being flexible enough to try new technologies by taking advantage of the fact that people turn to places like Apple for interesting gadgets and DON'T see Microsoft as the place to buy "cool" gadgets (the Xbox notwithstanding, but do you think people really associate the Xbox with the same company that makes Windows?)
A shark moves too slowly to eat smaller fish, especially schools. And even if the shark grabs a few (buys out), they are still plenty of new fish to take their place. Time will tell if the school of fish is more flexible and malliable than the overweight, overfed and relatively uncreative and inefficient fish that Microsoft has become.
Or, you can use the Rottweiler vs. a Rottweiler's Weight in Chahuahuas [grudge-match.com] analogy. Either way, Microsoft needs some weight loss. A Federally-mandated breakup might have actually been a good thing for MS a few years back to keep it stronger in the game and not this laggard monolith.
The world without Bill Gates (As we know him) (Score:2)
Without Microsoft it still would be a world of IBM and Oracle and that would be a lot more expensive world
Makes me wonder... how would be the world now if back then, this guy didnt wanted to charge money for his software??, what if Mommy Gates had not strong IBM relations so IBM had bought MS-DOs instead of licensed it??
Who knows... maybe OSS wont exist!
Uh, who's challenging whom? (Score:2)
Microsoft didn't come up with those application and they aren't particularly welcome in those areas.
This article reads like it was their's to lose when we're just trying to keep the elephant out of the living room because, like any elephant in a living room, it is very very messy.
Product development. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets have a look at what's hot or not at MS:
Exchange Server - incremental development only recently. 5.5 was the last "must have" upgrade. Domino was a major workgroup compeditor, it's still there, but not dominant. Plenty of F/OSS secure and configurable email servers about.
SQL Server - Really moving. MySQL and Postgres at the low end, DB2 and Oracle at the high end with competing products.
Enterprise authentication - Incremental improvents only recently. Active Directory is dominant, NDS in non-Novell shops is unheard of. Other LDAP based products are just getting a toenail hold.
Browsers - IE dominant and stagnant. With Firefox and Opera (et al), MS is finally ramping up development of a new version.
Office products - Office95/97 was a big improvement, but most users wouldn't use the new features in XP/2003 versions. Various FOSS office products are fast approaching "drop-in" replacements for most uses and users. Don't know where MS can go with this one.
IIS - Apache is market leader by most measures, IIS is too tied to the underlying OS. Not much room to improve.
File and print services. Still a lot of offices will have this as one of the most important IT function, along with financials. Samba/CUPS is a more than adequate replacement. MS's file sharing security-model hasn't improved much since the introduction of NTFS and share permissions. No notificable improvements in speed between NT4 and Server 2003 on comparable hardware.
Issues like security and patching have improved vastly, but still have a way to go.
Management of servers is still mainly point and click, but with improvements in 'scriptability'. Still waiting for the simplicity of configuration of an "/etc" folder with a series of
The big worry for MS is that it is and will continue to lose "mind-share". It's not cool to be working with MS products. It's products are only moving forward where a serious compeditor exists.
The only thing propping MS up is an "out of the box", polished UI. However, it soon pisses off power users and is also too closely tied to the OS. Works fine for Aunt Ethel, and that's fine for Dell (et al)
The lastest generation of net-admins or programmers will be equally experienced on Unix-likes or MS, unless they went to school in a MS-only brainwashing shop.
I'd consider MS will under attack.
do you really want (Score:4, Insightful)
ummmm.... yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Let's See - Is That 35% of $37 Billion? (Score:2)
Or is that 35% of its R&D budget FOR security issues - which would be about $1.95, I figure...
"Longhorn will make security issues a thing of the past."
Right, Bill - we KNOW how EVERY new version of Windows is going to be the "latest and greatest" - that's been your mantra since the first DOS...
And it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
Retroactive (Score:3, Interesting)
Viruses: Longhorn security features
Firefox: IE7
Java:
Can Microsoft simply change a bit? (Score:3, Interesting)
They are simply too huge to go away. They would have to make mistake after mistake for the stock to drop and for confidence to evaporate.
Hopefully Microsoft will soon realize that the wild growth of the 90s is gone, that they have run out of IT sectors to simply phagocyte, that they now need to really innovate rather than copy and do good-enough work, that they need play nicer and start collaborating a bit more.
There was a survey yesterday that said that basically people who choose open-source do that to avoid vendor lock-in, not for the price.
Microsoft cannot lower prices and recapture lost market, this is a race to the bottom that they cannot win. What this survey says is that they also cannot embrace-and-extend standards they way they used to because the industry has wised up to this strategy.
They pretty much own the desktop market, but there is no growth there except the natural growth of the market itself. They cannot grow all that much on the server market because Windows is not enough of a jack-of-all-trade, doesn't run competitively on large machines, and that the cheap servers run on Linux/BSD.
They are stuck. Sure they can grow on consoles, in the living room and on mobiles, but there is more competition there, and the margins aren't as fat.
Microsoft will not go away, but I wish they would realize that, become less paranoid and start behaving like a better corporate citizen. A bit like IBM has become. Start with following and proposing standards that other people can interact with.
What about leadership? (Score:4, Insightful)
But there are people making decisions at the top, and I think those decisions have been flawed.
It's analagous to Intel, where they decided that 64 bits wasn't important for consumers, and that compatibility with x86 wasn't important. Intel is huge, and that's not going to come close to killing them, but it did give AMD a few openings.
There are tough decisions that would have been jarring, culturally, on the Windows platform that Microsoft has shied away from. They should be pushing harder to get people not to run software with administrator privs, even though doing so would cause a lot of old software to break.
ActiveX is a security nightmare. Bagging it would cause a lot of pain and suffering in the short term, but keeping it is going to cost a lot more over the long run.
I think the main strength of open source software is that no one can make those sorts of decisions and force them on people. If you dig in on a bad decision, someone will fork the project.
I don't think that gates has had the guts to make the tough decisions since he's been the chief software architect. I know he's a genius, and he's obviously a lot smarter than I am. But I just don't see his record over the past couple of years as being that strong.
The main problem that Microsoft has now is that the bottom half of their user base (the proportion is just a guess) can't admin windows competently enough to keep the machines running reliably on the internet. Geeks can do it. My windows machines run fine, and have since the second version of windows 98. But an awful lot of people just can't pull it off -- they're bogged down in the muck, because admining their home windows boxes is too hard.
Microsoft is spending a fortune to patch bugs one at a time, but they're not addressing the fundamental architectural problems that make the bugs so damaging.
Compare that to what Jobs did with OS X. People were howling for years while they waited for it to come out. He was willing to piss off everyone by breaking compatibility with the old system. He took the long view, and he took his lumps up front to get things lined up for the future properly.
That's exactly what Gates doesn't have the guts to do. It's weak technical leadership.
Why Microsoft is Invulnerable (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, users will now INSIST on Windows, because they want it/know it/are used to it. This is even better than making it a legal requirement to use Windows or threatening people (by whatever means) to use Windows or else. A vast number of addicts (the situation is surprisingly analogous) to Windows will DEMAND it in spite of anything else, becasue for them it makes life easier.
What might happen is Microsoft will lower their prices and improve their quality to prevent the beginnings of a migration to another product - if they make their customers unhappy (i.e. take away what they're plugged in to) something might happen. But Microsoft will never do this. Their tendancy towards not changing anything is actually a bonus for most people, who want to learn a computer once and never have it do anything unexpected for the rest of their lives. (Please note that although I find this frustrating, it is neither surprising or blameworthy - I don't want to relearn how to drive or perform basic car maintainance every few years.) Competition does not produce products like that, since change is integral to competition. And if by some chance real innovation becomes a requirement, Microsoft may in fact be able to achieve this. We don't know - they haven't had to try. But Microsoft R&D has some good people, and it may be that if Microsoft's survival suddenly depends on an innovate product rather than an essentially-unchanging-but-incrementally-improvin
Microsoft is here to stay, in all cases where users choose stability/familiarity over performance. There are, of course, areas of society where the choice will go the other way, where people are willing to put in the extra time and effort to learn something out of the ordinary. But those will always be the exceptions, and they will only serve as a minor annoyance for Microsoft. Linux only gets so much press because of the novelty of it's pricetag and philosophy. There is no such thing as an "up and coming" Microsoft competitor. Apple produces an infinitely better product, and their market share is fairly fixed. Linux is decimating commercial Unix, but Unix users are both more familiar with the basic principles of the system and (of sheer necessity) more adaptable.
Linux will have successes - it will displace Windows in some cases, maybe even a lot of them. But most of the market share is businesses, and businesses will avoid risks that are not integral to their core business if they can. Microsoft is The Standard (de facto) and that fact is unlikely to change for the forseeable future.
"without their knowledge" (Score:5, Funny)
Instead, Longhorn will have a nifty lil pop-up that says:
"Windows has successfully installed a new Trojan Horse/Adserver. Before you can bein using this program
you must restart the computer. Would you like to restart the computer now?"
[Yes] [Ok]
Famous last words (Score:3, Funny)
Torn decisions inside (Score:3, Insightful)
80% of Microsoft's revenue comes from the top 20% of their enterprise customer base, meaning that 80% of their customers (likely you and I) do not get the attention that the big customers get. This is why security is such a big issue for them. It isn't to make your home PC more secure, that is just a side-effect.
The reason for pointing this out is that it is the largest 20% of the customers in the enterprise space that drive Microsoft's technical direction. Ever wonder why the Mac is better for the home market and novice user? It was designed and is driven by the desires of the home market, not the enterprise market. As long as Microsoft's focus remains on the large enterprise space, the product will continue to be just 'average' on the desktop. This is the crack in the market that Apple is going after.
Re:Heard this before...? (Score:3, Insightful)
the next version of the Windows operating system, will make {insert current scare here}'a thing of the past'
Re:This is predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll start believing it when large retailers like Dell start refusing to ship units with a Microsoft OS pre-installed.
Until then, I'm going to regard stories like this as nothing more than wishful thinking.
Re:This is predictable (Score:3)
Re:This is predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
Billions in thier war-chest?
Billions in R&D?
HUGE network of partners and providers?
Hey, not saying they are untouchable and couldn't fall but you really have to ask what thier advantages are???????
Re:This is predictable (Score:2)
Re:This is predictable (Score:2)
Yes, any company can be brought down. Companies with these same advantages as MS have fallen in the past. However, the advantages I listed in combination are probably the most difficult set of advantages to over-come. Could it happen? Yes. Will it be VERY difficult and take a lot of time (which
Re:This is predictable (Score:2)
Take your pick:
Arrangements with schools to get kids hooked on M$ applications
De-facto standard desktop OS
Games, games, games
Not that I wouldn't mind seeing something better come along, but right now, Microsoft works best for most people, and I don't see that changing particularly soon.
I'd love to see Linux prosper as a desktop OS, but sadly developers are not getting adequate cooperation from hardware manufacturers.
Re:Already struggling (Score:3, Funny)
The stock market has a way of seeing through the BS because money is at stake
-Enron?
-WorldCom?
-Global Crossing?
Re:This is predictable (Score:2)
Re:This is predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you on crack? Firefox is continually gaining ground on IE and Linux has sure as hell made a dent in Windows. What OS do you think those webservers/fileservers/print servers would be using if they weren't using Linux? The desktop is a different story, but corporations have already taken notice of Linux on the desktop and they are being deployed around the world as we speak. Linux on the corporate desktop has bee
Re:This is predictable (Score:2)
Re:From the article... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't it because.. (Score:2)
so even more options.
the biggest thing in MS's favour is laziness. but if they introduce this Trusted Computing BS and force people to change their ways... GAME OVER.
Re:why not unix? (Score:2)
They would be to be able to run existing programs. And since none of their programs run with open standards nobody has OSS replacements.
So that means say they make a new OS... say OS2 [hehehe] they would have to port office, outlook, etc... to it.
Had they used open formats the OSS community would be able to get there much quicker thus making the OS much more attractive [but also cutting into their bottom dollar].
Essentially MSFT is making themself largely obsolete as more and more people move
Re:this sounds like a case of... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way a company this big could be gone in 10 years (based on history) would be a major scandal, or a buyout. There's nothing desperate about MS's current position that they can't tackle. That's like saying that Pepsi is coming out with this cool new drink, so Coca-Cola may be dead soon. That's not in any way realistic.
Re:It's been said before (Score:2)