This week, speaking at a Gartner conference in Orlando, Florida, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said some fascinating things about Linux and about Open Source software in general. And thanks to those remarks and the blinding realization they caused for me, I finally understand exactly why Microsoft doesn't understand Open Source. Ballmer asked, "Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that. There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring -- we provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send e-mail. None of that is true in the other world. So far, I think our model works pretty well," The model has worked well for Microsoft, that's for sure.
At the core of Ballmer's remarks is a fundamental misunderstanding not only of Open Source, but of software development as an art rather than as a business. Cutting to the bone of his remarks, he is saying that Microsoft developers, since they are employees, are more skilled and dedicated than Open Source developers. They are better, Ballmer suggests, because Microsoft developers have their rears (presumably their jobs) on the line. All those lines and all those rears are part of a road map, he says, and because of that road map the $30 billion plus Microsoft gets each year isn't too much for us to pay, so the model works pretty well. This is nonsense. It is nonsense because Steve Ballmer, like Bill Gates before him, confuses market success with technical merit. Microsoft's product roadmap is a manifestation of a business plan, and what matters in Redmond is the plan, not the map, which is in constant flux. How many technical initiatives has Microsoft announced with fanfare and industry partners, yet never delivered? Dozens. That is no roadmap.
News source: I, Cringely
At the core of Ballmer's remarks is a fundamental misunderstanding not only of Open Source, but of software development as an art rather than as a business. Cutting to the bone of his remarks, he is saying that Microsoft developers, since they are employees, are more skilled and dedicated than Open Source developers. They are better, Ballmer suggests, because Microsoft developers have their rears (presumably their jobs) on the line. All those lines and all those rears are part of a road map, he says, and because of that road map the $30 billion plus Microsoft gets each year isn't too much for us to pay, so the model works pretty well. This is nonsense. It is nonsense because Steve Ballmer, like Bill Gates before him, confuses market success with technical merit. Microsoft's product roadmap is a manifestation of a business plan, and what matters in Redmond is the plan, not the map, which is in constant flux. How many technical initiatives has Microsoft announced with fanfare and industry partners, yet never delivered? Dozens. That is no roadmap.
News source: I, Cringely
James Taft, president of Sienna Software, and a Nasa Ames consultant, said: "The results we've been seeing are extraordinary for 256 processors.
"For instance, the Overflow CFD application has generated 200Gflops of sustained performance with 256 processors, which is exactly twice the performance that the Nasa Ames team achieved with the first 128-processor Altix system - all without optimising application code."
Running on its Ames 256-processor single system image, Nasa's ECCO ran a one-quarter degree global problem at a rate of 1.4 simulated years per wall clock day - the fastest ECCO result ever achieved on any system.
It was a speech for large corporations in my opinion, and I know of many company’s that would agree with him, they need the backup that Microsoft gives with everyone of its products and are willing to pay for it, so why shouldn’t they charge for it?
Well first off, I've been a staunch Microsoft shill for years, until I was willing to open up my head and try out linux (Mandrake 9.1) and found that I enjoyed the KDE desktop much better than Luna, and find myself more productive in the Linux environment. the OS was rock solid stable (which XP has been as well, to a point - I call them about even on that scale)
I have worked at Microsoft Partners & systems builders for years, and I think that Microsoft tech support is a joke. They're own marketing and advertising folks deny flaws, blame everything under the sun, etc. (Go let your .PST file get over 200 MB, or better yet IE 6.x temp internet files - ever get weird things like not being able to right click and save a pic in native format, only .bmp?) even when third parties find flaws, Microsoft refuses to always acknowledge or correct them. Furhter, for most home users, XP is simply not cost effective when compared to other options out there. Using KDE the Average Linux desktop is (too me at least) easier to navigate and use for n00bs when it comes to typical n00b stuff, writing letters/spreadsheets, balancing the checkbook, surfing the web (once you get java installed - dammit Sun better RPMs and let browsers include the RTE!), e-mailing etc. in fact its a safer environment for n00bs because you don't run as a root user. Further I think it would save a lot of companies a ton of money to switch to non-proprietary file formats (like using OpenOffice in stead of M$Office) without more than a few hours training (much cheaper than upgrade after upgrade.)
There is a place for M$ - but we can't continue to ignore the fact that Windows has some serious competition from Linux and Mac on the home users desktop, it wasn't the case a few years ago, Microsoft knows it, Bill and Steve know it, and the industry as a whole has caught on as well. I find it laughable to see Steve and Bill scrambling to hold on to their coins as they start sliding down the drain by making baseless attacks and trying to spread FUD. Microsoft became who they are today through innovation - they should try keeping that trend up (seriously, not just in marketing hype) to stay on top, not crushing little guys and trying to maintain the status quo.
Linux is making inroads to corporate desktops, but only in a slightly less minor reach, due to the costs involved. However the home user is more willing, ironically, to spend money on a product that "just works".
Now before you get all uppity, consider that for every one of you who can casually build a Unix box in your sleep and get it to work with X, all your up-to-the-moment hardware, dialup/DSL, kernel and software updates, all in your sleep ---- consider that for every one of you there are about 50 people or more who don't know and don't care to learn how to do this. Unix as a whole has a crapload to do in order to reach that sheer level of simplicity.
Competition? Sure. But be realistic: it's in the workplace desktops to a very limited degree, and the workplace servers, but the home users it isn't even coming close. Bear in mind that if you scale home use of OS's you might be hearing about more people using Linux but the market share for Windows continues to climb.
.
Also, I speculate that SB has every possible firewall and security device available to insulate him from the exploits that windows users suffer.. and techs on call 24/7 to fix any hardware/software glitches.. which trickles down to his personal staff. I would be VERY curious to know what the home setups of his private assistant(s) (secretaries) look like. Bet Linux is scarce.
Third, as the Boss Hog of a multinational monopoly, he receives deference beyond his due, and probably has a hard time getting any real data he doesn't insist on.
Yes-Men aren't unknown at the top level. He has NOTHING to gain from open source and everyone around him knows it. Massaging his input to avoid conflict with his prejudice is very nearly certain. He probably doesn't clearly realize how STUPID Microsoft looks to folks who must count license fees as optional, and hardware utility as a requirement. Not to step on any toes, the biggest competitor of MS monopoly is NOT open source, it's pirated versions of Windows. There's more pirated windows floating around (far as copies on desktops) than there is Linux.
THAT he gets a clear view of, I believe.
So, understand that Steve's view is biased, by his position. He would be shocked and amazed to hear how little he's agreed with, no doubt, if he could get out in the real world and do a little question/answer with sysadmins and home users.
I know that's rhetorical and subjective, but that's the point. It's a business, and you shouldn't have to depend on the "unknown quantity".
And the fact that if it's broke I have the ability to rewrite the code to suite my needs.
if you have the same compiler
if you have the exact same libraries that the source code references to
if you can understand the source
if you know enough about the whole program that any changes you make do not bring about problems elsewhere
if you have the time to debug someone elses application
The point is the option is there, and I can't be fined $200,000 and sent to federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison for trying to add some functionality to software that I paid over $300 for because I somehow violated the EULA that said I had to give my firstborn to the manufacturer and provide the right of jus primae noctis to some swarthy CEO with my fiancee.... you get the idea.
that's why your IFs mean little to the community.
if you have the same compiler
if you have the exact same libraries that the source code references to
if you can understand the source
if you know enough about the whole program that any changes you make do not bring about problems elsewhere
if you have the time to debug someone elses application
With GNU GPL, you:
do have the source.
do have the same compiler.
do have all libraries.
errr.. may not understand the source...
ummm.. may not know enough about the whole program...
aahh... probably don't have the time needed to debug it all by yourself.
Some good points there, though.
It's always easy to tell those that don't use Linux..
No... it's a profession for people with the right skills... of course you can make money with that and it's ok... (Wait, I'm not implying MS people has the skills...
If you make a plan (roadmap) for the next five years, for example, and after some time the possible future product seems to be obsolete (or zuckz), you can abandon that plan. If you still deliver the product, you are a decerebrated...
As he said in this own article (talking about Open Source)
As usual, another "not-so-deep-but-apparently-intelligent" rant by that guy...
Of course IMHO... sorry...
No... it's a profession for people with the right skills... of course you can make money with that and it's ok... (Wait, I'm not implying MS people has the skills... )
No. It is an art. Computer Science is very much like architecture. Design is the single most important facet of software development. People who don't get that, are just "C level programmers".
No mate... it's a profession... I'm in IT since 24 years ago, doing Consulting, Engineering, Analysis and Programming... I'm not, as you said despectively "just a C level programmer"... I designed A LOT of BIG systems (comprising hundreds and sometimes thousands programs)... I know what I'm talking about and the REAL complexity of systems design...
Who thinks the IT is an "art", is just an amateur, not a real professional...
Last edited by 12642 on 24 Oct 2003 - 15:11
There are some that argue that *everything* is art. Perhaps it means different things to different people. A bit like IT, really?
Just kidding, being a programmer and developer, I personally know that getting knee deep in code is nothing to do with art at all, its about technical knowledge and logic.
Mate, I don't care if the job is done for the money or just for pleasure, It's a profession anyways... I'm not "out of context"...
Sometimes I build systems just for me, friends or relatives, but I do the job professionally, following the methods and guidelines...
Lol... I agree with you mate... obviously... some people believes build a program or a piece of code is the same as build a system... nope, a program is not a system...
Or maybe they understand the definition of the word - they're are lots of professional artists in this world - you certainly seem like you have a lot of experience there JHAres - and making the mistake of so many, you use your "experience" to not pass along wisdom, but maintain your status quo... deal with it, it's called a vocabulary.
Thanks for calling me semi-analphabet mate... but you are wrong...
Just get a dictionary and search for the definition of "art" and "artist"...
I'm not an only-tech kind of person, In my life, I did much more than build systems... I can talk with you about philosophy, painting, literature and a lot of other things related to the human culture... I have enough time in my back... I'm not a kid....
You are acting like an arrogant, underestimating other people... deal with it...
But, back to the topic, IT can't be considered an "art" because is not an expresion of "aesthetics" and is not related to human emotions or sensations... IT, if you do it right, it's a profession which requires a lot of tech knowledge, lot of hours studying, some kind of creativity (because you are solving problems) and obviously can't provoke emotion or sensations... unless you're doing "digital art", but we are not talking about that here...
I didn't mean to infer it wasn't a profession. Of course it is. I was saying that computer science is artistic as well as technical. An artist needs to be able to draw objects and know all those artsy things like perspective and depth ect, just like we need to know our tools and technology. But when it comes down to it, developers are building something modelled after a real world problem. It's much like an artist puts whatever is in his head onto the canvass. Two different developers can approach the same thing completely different ways. Thats where the creativity comes in. Simple application may not need a whole lot of creativity. Maybe copy some code from a book and edit it, but complex systems can require alot of design work before a single line of code is laid down. It's where innovation comes into play. Dreaming up new ideas and new ways to tackle a problem in a better, more elegant way. Anyway, this is just a programming argument. I know its obviously a profession, but it most definately is an art, too.
I think you are confusing Computer Science with Programming. Most programmers at MS or even probably Open Source are not computer scientists, but programmers. Computer science is a research-based program and is NOT a vocational degree. It is meant to be the first step towards a career in computer research. Programming itself does not require a degree and is logical but not scientific.
Computer science = a science (is it an arts program? no.)
Programmer = profession (where creation is based on an end goal outside the realms of pure artistic endeavor.)
Neither is an art.
Then again, the thread's sorted itself out pretty much, so I'll leave it at that.
Here's my breakdown
Computer Science: A 4 year degree at a University
Architect: Knows everything from start to finish. Knows best practices and the best technologies for
the job. In charge of the overall project and delegates discrete chunks to developers. BS plus about 5 years of experience or more. (Why would they call them architects!!??)
Developer: BS. Knowelege of System design and proper design patterns.
Programmer: Low end programmers who are delegated smaller, more trivial, peices of code. Usually an associate degree or less.
Opppsss..... sorry mate....
Personally, I don't think that's what Ballmer was trying to communicate at all. Ballmer has stated that he believes people who are held responsible for their coding produce a better product. In this, I think we can all agree that he is mostly correct. Generally, people who are held responsible for their postcondition, require a good precondition. The precondition in this case happens to be the quality of the code.
Now, I don't agree with everything Ballmer says, but this article seems to respond in a very linear fashion. I take it at face value, and nothing more.
Microsoft will say anything about Linux programmers (or apple or Sun etc) that they can to imply they are the only real ones to be counted on and the only ones with vision etc.... do some more PR reading from M$ you'll see it.
Look, don't get me wrong, but Linus comes off all uppity saying "We only release code when it's ready, and that's why it's so good." There are more than a handful of kernel patches related to security.
Now I'm not saying he's awful, I'm just saying that they're both about equal for code value, and that's actually giving Linux a lot of credit where it isn't really due. Ballmer may be poking at the little guy programmer here, but the problems inherent to Linux exist all up and down the open source paradigm.
Purely commercial Unixes sell code, yes. Purely GPL OSs like Linux don't. There are exceptions, but that's basically it. And who really would pay for code when you can compile it for free? The shareware concept isn't really a good business model for the long term.
God, what a moron.
He never said the DEVELOPERS were any more or less skilled. He just said that with one corporation in control, it's easier to channel their skills into a final product instead of fragmenting it into eighty different directions. That's why he compared code done by a variety of people to code done professionally, "in a controlled fashion." You can have a bunch of people coding something, but without direction they're going nowhere.
Hence the "roadmap." If each Linux company has a different direction for its product, how is Linux going to get very far? If you were driving to a different city and you had eight different maps showing you how to get to eight different cities, how is that going to help you?
Now I'm not saying Linux is actually like this (it's not, except in the desktop market), but it's a more accurate representation than the way this guy is twisting his comments.
Those are just distributions. They don't have anything to do with the direction of the Linux kernal. It's Linus' kernal, he, and I believe theres a few people that help him, guide the direction for Linux. Not RedHat, not Suse, not Mandrake. They take that open source kernal, build on it, and distribute it as a commercial product.
Because I chose not to do it for a living. Not rocket science, buddy.
Why does the forum system exist, huh? Why are we even here if we're supposed to accept the articles as the gospel truth? Why don't you quit your job and go work for Cringely? I mean, we all know you'd be the first one to scream murder when one of Ballmer's articles gets on here. Why don't we publish your rants instead of Ballmer's articles? Huh?
But hey, I'm the only one you responded to in this whole thread full of opinions similar to mine, so it's obviously because the name at the top of the post is "JaggedFlame."
I never said that. Hence the "if" in the beginning of my statement. I said that in the server context, that theoretical situation isn't the case.
On the desktop, it is the case. I've used a lot of GUIs for Linux and they're all pretty scattered. They all seem to have their own ideas about GUIs, and as a result none of them are converging on a great GUI.
The kernel isn't everything. It's what's on top that matters in the desktop market, and it's fragmented.
Last edited by 820 on 24 Oct 2003 - 13:01
I know seven different ways to get from my house to work - so if one road gets closed, I get there another way - Microsoft wants a single point-of-failure and a single bottleneck - that doesn't help either. I want choice to use the right tool for the right job, and I don't want to use a miter saw to drill a screw hole, Microsoft want to tell me what tool to use and how and when I'm allowed to use it.
Not that it's bad to use something with less structure. But the option has to exist, right?
No, they don't.
Linux wants you also, they want your support dollars for their commercial Linux packages, or commercial products. And each one of those products is reliant upon a backend infrastructure that has only Linus as the responsible party, or even worse -- a smorgasbord of vendors all not held accountable for anyone else's actions designing code that should and may compile on 20+ variants of unix. You may have multiple roads, but to expound upon your analogy they're paved for 200+MPH traffic with stoplights every block (mostly red) and equally long to reach the same point.
We could argue personal problems with each operating system until we're blue in the face. Not a lot of good it's going to do here. So, how about we keep it out.
Last edited by 11783 on 24 Oct 2003 - 01:54
LOL!
Give me a ****ing break.
That asshole can shove his bull**** right back up his ass, I ain't buying.
Microsoft has lots of time and money to craft propaganda to sell their products to corporations and their stocks to investors.
Doesn't make it true, just goes to show how much bull**** most people will swallow with a big ****eating grin on their face.
Sorry for being so vehement...I don't like Ballmers fubar attitude or BS press releases.
G
LoL
That guy can be quiet, I ain't buying.
Microsoft has lots of time and money to craft propaganda to sell their products to corporations and their stocks to investors.
Doesn't make it true, just goes to show how many lies people will take.
Sorry for being so vehement...I don't like Ballmers attitude or lie filled press releases.
I don't know about you, but I don't see anything that relates to the topic at hand, or contians a point. All he says is he doesn't like Balmer, and Balmer is lying... about what, who knows? also, the line about Microsoft having a lot of money to sell products and stock doesn't relate at all to any of this... so your defense of this guy's swear laden post sort of falls apart.
quite frankly, it's awful english, since it has no point.
You don't have to like it.
I don't have to explain it.
Since when was a comment about a posted article off topic...
G
If you feel like you must profanely express your opinions, then perhaps it would be a wise idea to start an individual section of the forum for those who do not have the capacity, or those who choose not to use their capacity, to express their opinions in a format distinguishable from rubbish.
Oh, and when you're on a public forum, you're speaking to everyone. It's like being in a crowded room and screaming, "Hey, everyone, this is my opinion!" You subject yourself to the criticism of the room and its complement.
No, simply trying to prevent people like you from looking like a complete ingoramus.
this has been seen with the whole service pack...security fix distro shamble...
no-one really cares that the bugs are there and need to be patched,,,but MS' iniatial refusal to listen to consumers and release sp2 was arrogant and offensive..alot of people still on dial-up cannot download the 100 or so updates release post sp1
Or I'll just count all the critical patches since XP Gold and add 10 more to the total. That's still 49 total patches.
OH. I get it, you must have been thinking of Redhat 8! Since release -- months after XP -- there have been 110 critical patches issued. My bad.
You could argue that you don't NEED the patches on either side of the fence, so don't even bother. SP2 will be released when it's good and ready, and frankly, I prefer it that way, rather than rushed and buggy.
Last edited by 24542 on 24 Oct 2003 - 04:11
i must agree that both sides need patches, but the difference is that when linux were to be exploited you a) probably wouldn't get rooted b) probably wouldn't have an msblaster type problem
There are kernel vulnerabilities all over the board for Linux, over the years. How do you really know that you can't be rooted?
Lets assume then that even the DirectX security patch gives someone full access to a machine, just like the Gnome security patch. They're both equally stupid. There have been 179 security patches for Redhat since the release of 7.2 (Oct 2001). There have been 179 security patches for all Microsoft products since January 2000. Do you still think Redhat is inherently more secure, or whether beng "rooted" is even an issue?
I think most engineers would admit that Denial of Service attacks can exist on both sides of the fence. That was the core problem with MSBlaster, and most of the more public security issues out there.
As for outstanding holes, I think that's subjective too. Are there exploits? Are they acknowledged? Is it even relevent? I can show you outstanding problems with Mozilla, what would that mean to your argument?
Actually those of us with a bit more researched and open-minded view of the issues instead of blind a**-kissing loyalty to a peice of software tend to think the problem isn't patches - it's the SINGLE-POINT-OF-FAILURE and bottleneck caused by Windows Update.
I can get my mandrake patches from about 20 different mirrors... hmmmm.. OH AND I DON'T PAY $150.00 PER CPU FOR IT, so let's see - free, often patched, more security concious (speaking of the 110 patches how many of those critical updates needed were software related... oh nevermind!)
Neither is perfect you're right - but gee we see that both are getting good support - but one doesn't cost millions of dollars per year for use in the home market... gee. I wonder how many inner-city kids could learn to code and have some skill beyond being a drain on society because they have crap schools, no access to information etc, if M$ wasn't making it so "dangerous" with all their FUD for schools etc, to adopt Linux - maybe we could afford a desktop at every desk if only the price of hardware was the only roadblock - You see Linux has been a positive influence on the OS wars, and with no war, Microsoft would sit back on it's rear and do nothing to innovate. Windows NEEDS Linux, Linux doesn't NEED Windows.
I can't help but agree with this one... You’ve got a point here and the proof is in the pudding: IE has followed th