Microsoft Says Linux Stifles InnovationWants Government To Step InMicrosoft seems to be having difficulty competing with Linux specifically and Open Source software generally. A Microsoft executive, in an interview, said that Linux stifles innovation and that our government should do something about it. The article can be found here. Articles that are relevant to this subject are: Microsoft Marshalls Its Forces in Washington The following are comments received from PANUG members and non-members in response to the story. If you wish to post a response here but remain anonymous, we will do this providing that you tell us and identify yourself to us via email. We will then use your initials after your response. So far, all of the responses are critical of Micrsoft. In order to get a more balanced view, we've invited other user groups, such as the the Northern Oregon BackOffice User Group, to respond and we'll post their responses here as well. It is clear that from the perspective of a for-profit producer the idea of a free product is anathema. Yet that is assuming a great deal. There have been counter examples aplenty recently. Look at all the free internet web services based on an advertizing supported business model which have failed spectacularly in the past several months. The fact that some product is free does not guarantee the success of the product, nor the presence of a threat to other similar products. There are also many assumptions in the for-profit software business model. I recently saw a statistic that 60% of Americans use the internet in some fashion, and it is widely accepted that a little more than that many American households have at lease one computer. But how many can be said to NEED that computer or NEED to buy any particular software? This is all discretionary spending. And there is good evidence that consumers are NOT feeling under any pressure to continuously upgrade either hardware or software. One can no more assume that a for-profit software business model is all good, than that a free software business model is all bad. The simple fact is that the decision of what, if any, products to use, even in a monopolistic environment, is up to the consumer, not the producer. Paul Rogers, paul.rogers@juno.com This reminds me of oil companies that buy up patents and technologies in order to keep automobiles guzzling our precious fuel and fouling our environment in order to preserve their profits. In the case of Microsoft and Open Source software, there are no patents, products, or technologies that can be purchased and shelved. So Microsoft resorts to lies that only a fool would believe. If I trusted my government more, I wouldn't worry about this pathetic attempt to influence our law makers. MW IBM made Microsoft, because its quasi-monopolistic position in the market guaranteed the success of the PC OS they chose to market. Microsoft always understood the value of a monopolistic position, and has pursued it by one means or another ever since. So why should we be surprised when they use the same Big Lie politics that other monopolists have used to protect their interests? Of course it is funny to see them squalling like a stuck pig! ROTH David R As a technologist, I see the benefits of developing in an open-source
environment. In that environment, you've literally got a support team of
MILLIONS of users, not one company with a large marketing and legal
machine, oh, and a few tech guys too. Jim Allchin said "We can build a better product than Linux," I'd like
to know why they haven't done it then. Jeffrey Helten We think this was meant to be humor but we're not sure. Washington D.C. (Reuters) - Microsoft now realizes the comments from their Windows OS chief, Jim Allchin, resulted in
a faux pas of immense proportions. Allchin claimed that the Linux operating system stifles innovation, will destroy
intellectual property rights, and that government leaders must be educated to the serious threat. Allchin stopped short
of claiming that Linux will curdle milk and reduce the effects of Viagra. Even staunch Microsoft proponents admit that
they don't see how Microsoft could have possibly expected anyone to buy the silly story. To try to divert attention, Microsoft's Gates called upon the Bush administration for help. Wishing to demonstrate
that he was up to the task of leading America's armed forces, Bush had his staff secretly negotiate with Saddam Hussein
of Iraq. In a plot reminiscent of the movie Wag The Dog, Saddam had his radar sites target U.S. and British war planes
patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zone. The planes were given the go ahead to fire upon the radar sites and the story dominated the news - taking the focus
off of Microsoft and Allchin. In exchange for Iraq's cooperation, the Bush administration promised to lift certain
sanctions that were imposed after the Gulf War and to supply Iraq with more modern radar systems. Microsoft plans on repaying the favor by altering the contract they have with the White House. Previously, the
contract stated that all computers in the White House must run the Windows operating system. The penalties for failing
to abide by the contract terms includes increasing the per seat licensing fee to $400. The problem is that some critical White House computer applications
require better reliability than Windows can provide. Ironically, the
ammended contract will reportedly allow critical areas of the White House,
such as the Situation Room, to deploy the more reliable Linux operating system. Sources in the Bush administration who wish to remain anonymous, now wonder what international incident the
administration can engineer when it's announced that the Justice Department anti-trust case against Microsoft will be
dropped later next month.
I shouldn't be surprised that Microsoft wants our government to be a co-conspirator in cleansing the marketplace of
technically superior products and technologies and turning our industry into a monoculture. Still, I am surprised. Very surprised. To voice such outright lies and expect people to believe it goes beyond
arrogance. It's desperation. It's the kind of desperation you'd expect from a company that was struggling to hold
on. Linux is becoming a household word - just like Windows was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many Open Source
software programs are displacing Microsoft's products. Microsoft is witnessing its own decline in mindshare - the very
thing that got them where they are today. They're also witnessing their decline in market share in the server space. The
desktop is next. Real innovation occurs when people and companies have open access to the marketplace. Microsoft can no longer compete
in open markets. It's days are numbered. Ed Sawicki Open source software is built on a different economic model than proprietary software. In open source circles,
programmers build prestige and reputation by contributing software. Their work is peer-reviewed; poor code is
immediately exposed as such. The more the software is circulated and used, the greater the programmer's prestige. The
personal reward is that reputation will translate into interesting, well-paid jobs. The benefit to society is the
development of high-quality software, free or lower-cost depending on the conditions of its development. The success of
GNU, and to a lesser extent Linux, proves that the model is rational. The proprietary model is based on the assumption that you must pay people to get them to work. But nobody would be
willing to pay unless they can hope to sell the product. All software products become obsolete, but sharing the code
hastens this and is therefore an enemy. Carried to an extreme, the proprietary model may result in more uniformity than technical innovation, as the success
of Microsoft demonstrates. But another word for uniformity is "standards," and that's of some benefit to society,
too. What is the true "American way?" Both, really. The U.S. Constitution set up a patent system. The patent system grants a monopoly to encourage
development (the proprietary model). But the monopoly is only temporary; the benefits eventually accrue to society (the
open source model). Unlike patents, proprietary software generally relies on licenses and trade secret law to attempt
to keep a monopoly "forever." The open source movement is an antidote, forcing proprietary software truly to innovate
(either technically or in its marketing) to keep a temporary "monopoly." Raymond L. Robert
|