On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:45:00PM -0400, Ed Centanni wrote:
> Never attribute to malice (or ingenuity) that which can be explained by
> incompetance.
>
A great many things people think are explained by incompetence are
actually due to malice. Not all things, but a great many. And at some
point, incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
> They're starting to feel the pressure, they're envious of the favorable
> press and overall "cool" and contemporary elan (look it up at
> www.dictionary.com) enjoyed by Linux and Open Source. Investors are
> concerned, maybe even spooked and are starting to tell management to "do
> something" and this is the best they can come up with.
>
> Think about this: Why is Microsoft the only company that has failed to
> somehow embrace or accomodate Linux and Open Source. Of all the
> software industry they are uniquely alone in this.
What figures are you looking at? There are _tons_ of companies that are
still Microsoft worshippers. And even the large companies are only
hedging their bets with us. Almost all of Dell's, IBM's and HP's
computers still ship with some version of Windows installed. They may
believe that OSS is a good thing, but they don't think it's so good that
they can dump Windows. And these are hardware companies, with whom we
don't really compete. In a lot of cases, we could well be competition
for software companies.
> It makes no real
> business sense to take the attitude they have. It's corporate CYA. They
> failed to recognized the potential of Linux and Open Source early on and
> are now trying desperately to justify their bad decision. To make
> matters worse they alienated an entire new generation of IT
> professionals, lost credibility and trust. They cannot reverse their
> course now because to do so would admit major mistakes. Even if so, no
> one would take them seriously. For microsoft's current management, the
> train has left the station and there will be no "turning on a dime" for
> them this time. Only a major palace coup will save them from eventual
> irrelevance.
>
In a sense, I agree here. The Microsoft sells software, not service.
They'd have to change their whole revenue model to really embrace OSS.
And they have momentum that would take ten or twenty years to stop. They
are the IBM of our era (as IBM used to be before the PC revolution).
Microsoft sells an OS and office applications. So do we, but for a lot
less, and without all the licensing encumberances. That makes us
competition. To them, we are another Netscape. Except that Netscape's
product was not appreciably better than IE, and Netscape didn't
originally give it away. And it was far easier to choke off Netscape's
air supply than ours.
> Today we saw the best course of action a group of desperate corporate
> officers could take. Pitiful.
>
> It may even be worse -- they may actually be the arrogant pr1ck5 they
> appear to be and really believe the stuff they're pushing.
>
They do believe it. It is inherent in their corporate culture. Gates
has always been anti-free-software, since his college days. It is
inconceivable to him that anyone in their right mind could do free
software. As far as he's concerned they/we are a bunch of 60's type
hippies and radicals who will never get rich or get ahead in the world.
And if you work for Microsoft, you've got stock options, and you've been
bought. So you will believe in Microsoft's primacy and revenue model.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:15:02 EDT