Ballmer: We're more innovative than Linux

I just got finished reading an interview with Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft (click here). It's interesting to see how the guys in Redmond view Linux and their plans on squashing it through innovation and cost savings.

It's also interesting how many questions he doesn't answer and the number of accusations he throws at Linux (you don't have someone to call to fix a problem) that also apply to Microsoft.

Abraham Lincoln once said "People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like." If you like FUD, then this is for you. Enjoy!

I think he went to the same school as the Iraqi Info minister

<Steve_Ballmer>
What, Linux - they are dead, we crushed them. They started moving into our server market and we crushed them. They are trying to regroup but the linux developers are now commiting suicide because we have crushed them. There is not a single linux machine playing in our turf because we crushed them, the poor rotten cowards. They will be going home dripping hard drive fragments - becuase we crushed them.
</Steve_Ballmer>

thedude - I agree.

I remember reading a while ago about Project Longhorn, how they were taunting that it will be the most advanced os to hit the market ever - right down to the translucent menus. I think someone forgot to tell him that translucent menus have been around for quite some time now...

That is just the funniest thing I have read in awhile.



Oh yes, as if transparent menus are even useful. And how does this make a server better?

One of the more interesting things I've noticed is that Microsoft is even experimenting with trying to be more Unix-like. Somewhere recently, I read that they are even working on a command-line environment for a server. I know it sounds like a slashdot QOTD, but I am not kidding in the least. Anyone remember where this link is? Osnews? Theregister.co.uk, something like that.

Edit: Oh, and check this out... It looks like there is a fun little debate coming to my town. Should I go and heckle? Of course, I will go as a FreeBSD zealot and heckle both sides .

Hey, maybe you should jump into the action for a 3-way debate:

BSD | Linux | Windows

That will make it really intresting...

Maybe we can send the organizers an email and politely ask them why BSD was left out of the loop...

The last time I went to a Microsoft TechNet meeting I wore my Borland C++ Builder t-shirt. I won a door prize (a book on XML) so I got to walk up to the front of the room wearing it. On the way back to my seat a guy in the audience waved me down. He said he liked my shirt and asked me if I was looking for a job.

My opinion: Definitely go and heckle. You never know what might happen.

Well... considering that the organizers are the Florida Linux User eXchange, they're probably just going to say it's "outside the scope" of their interest . But, what I really should be doing is organizing a South Florida BSD user group, and we can issue a two-way challenge to Microsoft and Linux. Let the fur fly. Alas, we BSD users tend to be too busy for this sort of nonsense...

Heh, the last M$ meeting I went to was all about their new software licensing program and how I could make a ton more money. I went becuz I had a chance to win an Xbox and they had free food.

BTW, I won the Xbox. Pretty pathetic actually, they had us fill out these forms all about your business, then the guy went around to people and had them pick a form (like it was a contest entry). I was first and by chance I picked my own form!! He said "Well take what you want", the Xbox is mine!!

So long and thanks for the fish M$ !

HE HE HE

Are you going to install Linux on it?!

Did you guy's see this stupid introduction Steve Ballmer did? He was jumpin' like a pro.

I've been mulling this for awhile... but here's a thought for you... what if Microsoft actually comes out with something that's WORTH buying? I doubt that Server 2003 will be it, but still - what if they do get on the ball and start making worthwhile software? They've been working on it recently, and they have made some big improvements. For example, XP is actually a fairly stable operating system compared to previous doze incarnations. Granted, it's nothing compared to a Unix/BSD/Linux box, but it's still a big step forward on the stability front. If they start bulking up their security like they claim to do, then take care of the obnoxiously slow turnaround time to a patch when problems come out, they could actually become a contender on the technical front instead of just a big ugly marketing machine. Heck - get the ridiculous licensing structures squared away ("So, how many licenses do you need?" 'Well, I was thinking maybe 20...', "GREAT! 500 it is!", 'We're kind of small...', "GREAT! 500 it is!" ... ) and I might even consider keeping the doze installation that my machines come with when I buy them off the shelf.

On top of that.. they're oddly confident about this Server 2003 release (maybe because it didn't BSOD during the demo...). They're not investing much time or effort into blasting the oss group with childish insults (you're all communists because you don't buy our product..) or any of their old tricks. Do we have them back on their heels? Are we forcing them to come up to our level and fight the battle based on quality products and value for customers? Or, do they know something we don't know...?

Microsoft may eventually get to that level to where they do have a good, stable, secure, reliable, etc... product to sell. But by the time that happens we'll be dead, our kids will be dead and at least our grandkids will be dead.

I think the end of time will come before m$ comes around.

My problem with Microsoft is more personal than technical. We've had few problems with our Exchange or SQL Server. I was able to produce database programs that users liked using VB. I've kept my machines patched and have never had any serious problems like other people have reported. Compared to other commercial toolsets out there, Visual Studio is a bargain compared to Borland, IBM, Oracle, Qt, etc. products. If you don't mind the fact that Microsoft defines open systems as anything that runs on Windows, then I can see why a lot of companies like their products.

The problem with Microsoft started with an incident involving licensing. They audited us and were just extremely obnoxious about it. Very heavy-handed, bullying and condescending to our department director. It didn't feel like we were doing business with a professional partner. It felt like we were dealing with an extortionist.

After years of having a good professional relationship with our IBM representative, having a Microsoft rep swagger through the door and slap our director around didn't endear them to us. Basically Microsoft sent us running back to IBM (and therefore Linux) as our primary vendor. The edict came down from above shortly thereafter: Do your best to use non-Microsoft products whenever possible.

Having done a pretty respectable job of scorching the earth and destroying all the good will towards them around here, I don't have a lot of sympathy when I see Microsoft having problems with users migrating to open-source software. I can't think of anything that anyone has ever done to me that I couldn't eventually forgive them for. But I'm still annoyed with Microsoft's behavior and I'm not sure what they could do to win me back as a customer. Having burned us once, we want them to have as little influence over our office as possible.

Bottom line: We don't trust them.

The only reason people use Windows is because it comes preinastalled on most PC's and more software runs under it. If only more companies released Linux/BSD versions of their software and manafacturers gave people a choice, Microsoft would be dead.