The open-source operating system trailed only the economic environment in the biggest risks outlined by CFO John Connors.
Microsoft is taking the Linux threat seriously. So seriously, in fact, that open-source software comes in at the No. 2 spot on the company's top five list of risks. In a teleconference to go over the Redmond, Wash.-based developer's fourth quarter and fiscal 2003 results on Thursday, CFO John Connors detailed the five biggest risks to his company's business. "The general economic environment is risk and driver No. 1," he said. "Linux and non-commercial software is risk No. 2."
The rest of the top five, Connors said, are growing the installed base in today's tight-spending climate, litigation, and executing plans on multiple fronts. "I'm a bit surprised that Linux comes in at number two on their list," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm that tracks Microsoft's products and strategies. "I might have flipped Nos. 2 and 3. But when you think about it, Linux falls in the same category as the attempt to grow the installed base," he said, going on to lump the two into what he calls "just good enough."
News source: InformationWeek
Microsoft is taking the Linux threat seriously. So seriously, in fact, that open-source software comes in at the No. 2 spot on the company's top five list of risks. In a teleconference to go over the Redmond, Wash.-based developer's fourth quarter and fiscal 2003 results on Thursday, CFO John Connors detailed the five biggest risks to his company's business. "The general economic environment is risk and driver No. 1," he said. "Linux and non-commercial software is risk No. 2."
The rest of the top five, Connors said, are growing the installed base in today's tight-spending climate, litigation, and executing plans on multiple fronts. "I'm a bit surprised that Linux comes in at number two on their list," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm that tracks Microsoft's products and strategies. "I might have flipped Nos. 2 and 3. But when you think about it, Linux falls in the same category as the attempt to grow the installed base," he said, going on to lump the two into what he calls "just good enough."
The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
In some cases, subpoenas cite as few as five songs as "representative recordings" of music files available for downloading from these users. The trade group for the largest music labels, the Washington-based RIAA, previously indicated its lawyers would target Internet users who offer substantial collections of MP3 song files but declined to say how many songs might qualify for a lawsuit.
"We would have to look at historic trends, but that is a very high number," said Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has argued against the subpoenas. "It doesn't sound like they're just going after a few big fish."
Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels.
A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA.
Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne, Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson. It was impossible to determine whether industry lawyers were searching the Internet specifically for songs by these artists or whether they were commonly popular among the roughly 60 million users of file-sharing services.
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
The RIAA declined to comment on the numbers of subpoenas it issued.
"We are identifying substantial infringers and we're going to whatever entity is providing (Internet) service for that potential infringer," said Matt Oppenheim, the group's senior vice president of business and legal affairs. "From there we'll be in a position to begin bringing lawsuits."
A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the clerk's office here was "functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country." Any civil lawsuits would likely be transferred to a different jurisdiction, spokeswoman Karen Redmond said.
Verizon, which has fought the RIAA over the subpoenas with continued legal appeals, said it received at least 150 subpoenas during the last two weeks. There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.
Depaul University in Chicago was among the few colleges that received such subpoenas; the RIAA asked Depaul on July 2 to track down a user known as "anon39023" who was allegedly offering at least eight songs.
There was some evidence the threat of an expensive lawsuit was discouraging online music sharing. Nielsen NetRatings, which monitors Internet usage, earlier this week reported a decline for traffic on the Kazaa network of one million users, with similarly large drops across other services.

"The end" Lol.
Humans, I tell ya man, The world would be a better place if the humans were wiped off the face of the earth. If anything is going to be the end of anything it's the humans that are going to end it.
What is this, the red scare? Come on...
First of all: If everything does go to Linux (unlikely because of the lack of support for the geek-impared) and the system falls apart, and programmers go out into the hills and hide in caves because there is no market, then there are no programmers adding to Linux (and no, I don't think the ultra geeks are just going to be updating code for no money forever because they will all starve to death. they have to be making money somewhere). MS or another company comes along and offers something better for a price, people will make the switch.
Doesn't this have to do with John Adams concept of the "Invisible Hand" in "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"
Last edited by 10547 on 19 Jul 2003 - 10:16
Your arguement is correct in one sense, that computing as we know it will change, but it is certainly not the end.
You're just another Microsoft zealot.
Well gee... then don't release free software. The beautiful thing about free software (both speech and beer) is that nobody who doesn't want to use it has to. However, it remains a better development model, as bugs both major and minor are found sooner, analyzed by a greater number of technical minds, and fixes come out faster. Yes, Linux still has some long-standing bugs as was pointed out further up in this page, but so does Windows. All software has bugs. Period.
I don't know why I even get so suprised at ridiculous FUD such as OrangeSoul's post anymore. People still pay to produce free software, and good development gets rewarded, thus keeping development up. If free software kills the proprietary software industry eventually, it will be because it works better, not because people don't want to pay. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather pay a reasonable price for a product that works much better than any free alternatives, but if the free alternatives are better, then there's no reason for me to pay.
Yea, that's why Apache's the most widely-used web server.
OOPS!
There are many other examples, but obviously you're not anywhere near knowledgable in the field -- FreeBSD and Linux are the undisputed champions in the fields that they are best at, built by hobbyists and employed engineers. You think Red Hat doesn't employ people to code? Get a clue, every commercial outfit does. It's not only hobbyists.
OOPS!
Oops is right. Netcraft's methods are flawed. http://www.port80software.com/servermask/t...1000webservers/
I agree with the rest of your point, but Apache is NOT the most widely-used webserver where it counts: corporations. And this is an especially relevant point because Jason was talking about corporations trusting software, not domain parkers and random home users. Find a better example (I know they exist).
For example, if everything is free, why have the small house when the larger house is available? Who cleans the larger house, if people just do what they want to do?
This is Linux; at least, this is what the economy would be if the Gnu license would apply to everything everywhere. Sure, some things would be better, but at what costs? Basically it would end up that everyone is exactly the same (an argument reserved for some other rant
There would be lawsuits from everywhere saying in short "there's no way we can compete with that!" And the irony is that it has nothing to do with open source, it has to do with features and goods and services .. largely the same things that Linux provides.
We don't live in Star Trek, we live in a culture that requires goods for services, services for goods. Linux will eventually be comparable to Microsoft in the long term, in some form or another. However, it is my opinion that it will never be as good due to it not being a for-profit company. Companies like Redhat are providing a business model that might work to do this... but then again that's not truly free now is it...
That's a pretty serious risk for Microsoft...
Go Microsoft Go!
And for those saying open-source will be the death of programmers, I'd agree with you emotionally, but logically, there is space for both to co-exist peacefully.
In the mean time - and until that happens, I support choice. If I choose to buy software I will buy it, if I choose to use free software then that's my choice too and its noone's damn business one way or another what I do. The way you MS fantatics are going on its almost like you want free software banned. What, I have to give up my hobby becuase you think its harming the economy? Like I said, screw you, I will give my money to who ever I want, or not and there isn't the slightest thing you can do about it. If I don't feel like making MS any richer than they already are, well that's just tough. They aren't putting any cash in my pocket.
Lets wait those 20 years, and see who's laughing then...
Q
Because you say you give your money to whoever you want, lets assume they both cost the same. Because it just sounds to me like you feel like you're being ripped off. Much anger in this one...
Sure the value is different. So is the supportability, the serviceability, the reliability.
There will always be free operating systems everywhere. The problem with them is that software vendors may never write for them, because (like you and everyone else) we live in a society where we like to earn money. In the last 20 years we still see people coding for DOS. But how much money are they making, and do you think they're laughing?
BSD, Linux, Windows. They're all fundamentally the same. They all can run games, they all can have gui's and security holes. Services open up network ports, there can be flaws on any and all of them. Apache, Sendmail, XWindows, all have their fair share of security issues just like IIS, Windows, etc.
Usually trust is earned through a greater knowledge of the product. Clearly, most people don't trust windows, apparently, through a lack of knowledge in the product.
Q
Last edited by 13486 on 19 Jul 2003 - 09:18
You mention you don't make money coding for Linux, in many ways it's your hobby. I applaud that, there's nothing wrong with that. Would you know many companies that would bet their infrastructure systems on a hobby-based OS? Or one with a supportable business model?
Most corporate infrastructures work around Solaris, or DECos, or something else with price points that are comparable if not MORE than Microsoft.
I have every faith Linux will survive a long time, so you don't need to beat that point home any more. However free systems only have one home currently and that is on the fringe systems ... home systems or non-critical networking. I'm sure Microsoft is only concerned about the home systems, that's the end user client systems. And still, Linux has a long way to go to catch up there.
Actually that the last area they are concerned about (or shall I say least). As you know, MS has a complete dominance in the home desktop environment. And as they produce more stable versions, there is less reason to upgrade... (about half of all windows users are still running Win98... god knows why, but with the stability of XP, how many ya think will upgrade to the next version? an even smaller portion).
Now, while they obviously won't abandon the desktop market, in order to keep share prices affloat they are continually moving into more ofthe networking and server area... and if you think "free" (and who knows why you ppl think open-source=free) systems don't already have a place in critical networking environments, not to mention a gaining one, you are mistaken.
in other words... #2 on the risk list
But that's not what Linux is, or the free software foundation in general. Yes, there are some people who contribute as a hobby, but there are also a significant people who are paid to develop Linux, Mozilla, etc. In this way companies that have an interest in a particular product can take an active part in development, while often costing less than buying enough licenses for proprietary software for the entire office.
Linux is a lot closer to end users than you might think. KDE is capable of providing many of the features novice users expect from Windows. The main hurdle at the moment is getting people to recognize this, i.e. marketing. Lindows, though I'd never touch it myself, is a big help in this area.
And what is the value to the consumer once downloaded?
For some, it represents a smorgasbord of opportunity, a plethora of plenty, a fountain of free software and endless amounts of open code. For others, it's unsupportable crap with no manual or help desk.
Everyone finds their happy medium. With other threads in this vein I see the Linux community ending up largely right where MS is right now. Totally agree that Linux continues to improve, but where they are improving are in areas where Microsoft already excels. At some point things will break even...
I think the reason behind Linux "improving in areas where Microsoft already excels" is that the two OSes had different initial goals. MS wanted to create a continually marketable product, thus making usability by the informationally challenged a major part of development. Linux was intended to create the most stable foundation possible, and to build upon that for usability. I think there are a lot of people that if a Linux-using friend shows them around a KDE desktop, showing how it doesn't crash, they'll be sufficiently impressed there. It's the same as people showing their friends Mozilla - once they realize they don't get popups, they fall in love with the it. Technologically challenged people tend to be easily awed.
Q
Last edited by 13486 on 19 Jul 2003 - 11:24
I've been in this industry for yadda yadda years and have done yadda yadda yadda. I've tried this and that. I've seen OSes come and go. I won't presume your technical intelligence (or lack thereof) if you give me the same respect.
So having said that, I tell my fortune 500 company management to choose Windows in some areas. Unix is losing grounds. Windows is not a lamer's choice, it is a powerful operating system with a full and rich feature set. Just because something is "easy" doesn't make it less powerful. Look at your car for example. Two pedals, a turning mechanism. If you like tweaking the engine go right ahead. But basically all models are the same. We can argue horsepower, but that's comparative, no matter how you slice it.
Since you bring up openoffice or games, yes -- good point! Windows has the market on usability. Openoffice is available on windows and is a good choice for that, yet lacks some interoperability features. As for games, there are very few that are available for Unix that don't cost money, or have the same performance as the Windows counterparts, or even the usability. The gaming market is definitely owned by the desktop market, because as with everything else, the developers would like to make money.
You bet wrong, sorry.
Unix is losing ground in the sense that it used to own the enterprise. Where are it's percentages now? Less than it was. Sure it dominates and continues to grow but so does the whole industry. What used to be a 90+% market share is dwindling, for unix.
Linux may fill those shoes, but I couldn't recommend to my mgmt that we place linux into mission critical areas. I run linux in a few key areas as well, but nothing critical.
Q
Last edited by 13486 on 19 Jul 2003 - 11:16
No operating system is better than each other. They are equal in a sense that people use what they want to use. That is all.
Windows, Linux, whatever.
This is one of the /very) few posts in this thread that makes any sense!...
Whats wrong with freeware/oss??!
am i suposed to buy software having a free alternative that suits my needs just to get the economy going???
Its the paid software that must give me something extra to justify the price!
I hope that Linux prospers and gives MS a run for their money!
There's nothing wrong with MS either!
Is MS evil just because they do everything they can to sell their products?? Thats what every comercial company does (or should do)!
Its up to the ppl to come up with alternatives if they dont like MS!
the only thing wrong here is the neverending human stupidity thats getting worse every day...
Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. So they're "convicted." Woo, big deal. You do realize that IBM used to hold monopolies as well?
evo
They use it themselves! Now you know...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.