[Leaplist] Re: Microsoft Suggest Linux Hotmail Users Use Outlook Express (long)

[Kevin Anderson]

> Kevin Anderson wrote:
>> There was a time MS could kill the competition. That time has
>> passed.
>>     
>
> Microsoft always could, and still can, kill anyone who stupidly partners
> with them.  That's always been the problem.  If you hit Microsoft
> completely parallel, with a business model that they cannot affect,
> that's how you compete.
>   
You mean like IIS vs Apache?  Or .net vs PHP?  Or MSN vs Google?  Even 
IE vs Netscape 10 years ago where as IE vs Firefox now.

These are examples of competition.  Partnerships are not competition.

> Just as Red Hat.  It's entire approach has been not to make the same
> mistakes of other companies, including not only Novell, but even Sun
> before it.  I'm not saying Novell and Sun were wrong, but it's not good
> to get into bed with Microsoft if your strategy is to avoid that aspect
> of "control."  I've defended both Novell and Sun before Novell
> (especially since most people are wholly ignorant of Sun's exact same
> moves prior), but it does tell you where the ultimate focus is, and how
> it can hurt them and not Red Hat.
>
> Investors keep writing off Red Hat, yet Red Hat continues to have
> consistent, return customers and -- even more so -- the absolute highest
> customer satisfaction rate in software year after year by CIOs.
> Investors keep assuming that there is this "holy grail" of distribution
> lock in Open Source like there is in Windows, where you can screw the
> customer out of millions without giving them anything.  Nope.  There is
> only the profitable, but not overly profitable, aspect of subscriptions
> and related SLAs, which are built on being the people who have done it
> the longest, with the most mindshare, with the customer in mind.
>
>   
Are you paid by RH?  I get that they're a good company.  But no 
different than Postgres, Barracuda, QT, or any of a host of others.  
Yes, Investors are greedy and stupid, but investors don't decide 
anything of any value to me.  I'd "valuate" *buntu MUCH higher than RH.  
Yes, that's partly because I dislike RH (based on history with RH 7-9, 
rather than "I hate RH cause it's cool to hate RH")
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> Even if the US continues to use MS, the rest of the world is
>> moving away fairly quickly.
>>     
>
> Please don't make statements you can't statistically back up.
> "Feelings" to nothing.  Not only worse than that, they are often based
> on "marketing," not "reality."
>
> People complain about CIOs only reading the headlines, but there are
> countless, and alleged "real" Linux advocates, who are part of that same
> problem.
>
>   
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/french_open/
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4254330887.html
There's plenty of others, if you try one of the more popular Linux 
"applications", Google, you'll be lead to them.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> Part of that it that the US can afford MS, whereas others
>> cannot.
>>     
>
> Red Hat charges up to $3K per year for a copy of RHEL, and $15K+ per
> year for some products.  Cost has nothing to do with it.  In fact, the
> cost of software development and support is the cost, not the end-unit
> reproduction cost.
>
> I have *0* problem with Microsoft per-unit pricing, at least on Windows
> for the most part.  I have 100% problem with their IP stances and volume
> contracts and, even worse, lack of even implementing their own IP
> (again, not even "proprietary" by a common definition, but
> "abandonware") and other things.
>
> I have no problem paying for proprietary software that not only serves a
> need, but the vendor takes my money and stands behind its lineage for 10
> or more years.  That's what the whole, "positive" term of "proprietary"
> means, not this "negative" thing we've associated with Microsoft (which
> is _not_ even "proprietary").
>
> "Cost" is also relative.  Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, etc... do
> cater to the locale and its costs.
>   
Red Hat is not Linux.  Let that sink in.
Red Hat might be price comparable with Windows, sort of.
Look at *buntu.

Ultimately though, you've reitterated (or missed) my point.  IN THE US, 
cost is no object.  In other countries, it is.  That's why OLPC choose 
Linux.  The US isn't their market. 

Even if MS wants to compete with *buntu, and give away Windows, for 
free, to 1 billion citizens who can't afford it, how long can they 
continue that proposal?  Where I can run Linux 2007 (pick your distro) 
on the same 15 year old computer that initially came with Windows 3.11, 
the same can't be said for Vista.  So in order for MS to play in the 
same league, they need to provide both hardware and software to the end 
user.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> Part of that is that the US is already deeply tied to MS, making a 
>> move to Open Source much more difficult than in India or China, where
>> there is no legacy data baggage to worry about.
>>     
>
> This is also largely garbage.  The far east has been a heavy pirate for
> years, and Microsoft products are very entrenched in areas as well.
> It's why most companies do have various protections for their software.
> It's nice that we don't have to in the Open Source world though.
>
> Also, read up on South Korea.  ;)
>   
Pirating might be true.  I'll grant you that.  But look at the path to 
upgrade from it.  Is it easier to go to Red Flag, for free, and migrate 
the data to Open Office?  or to upgrade to Vista and Office 2007.  Even 
in the US, where money isn't such an obstical, look at the adoption rate 
for Vista.  It's an ugly product, sure, but it's also a ton of useless 
training and learning for no real advantage.  Add to that the cost of 
hardware upgrades that I already mentioned, and MS's increasing piracy 
controls, and this is no longer true. 
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> In a global economy, I don't believe MS can win against Open
>> Source.
>>     
>
> In a global economy, locale is still king, ironically enough, more than
> ever before.  So Open Source is about world-wide collaboration,
> localized customization.  Any company (not just Microsoft) that does not
> realize that has a problem.  You can't keep pushing any nation-centric
> approach down everyone's throats.
>   
Microsoft is about cost effectiveness.  If there is no cost effective 
market for their product, it written or sold, regardless of the demand, 
period.  Where you can add "Florida slang" to your KDE desktop, if you 
so choose, you can't do that to Microsoft, and they never will, because 
the market is too small to ever justify it.

I don't think that really matters, but I mention it to point out that 
Microsoft IS nation centric.  They will accommodate nations that provide 
income to their business.  And increasingly that is US North America.  
Even the rest of the Americas are walking away, albiet slowly.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> When people think to themselves "hmmm. 1/2 the sales force on MS or
>> double the sales force on Open Office", MS will get dumped pretty
>> fast.
>>     
>
> Depends.  OpenOffice.org is still largely a Sun commercial project, both
> in developers and in 100% IP ownership.  Sun has a cross-patent license
> with Microsoft, has for the past half-decade.  The only reason people
> haven't demonized Sun and OpenOffice.org like Novell is largely a
> combination of ignorance and reading paralegals (not even lawyers) like
> those out at Groklaw.
>   
Agreed.

I'd point out that Gnome too, is mostly paid corporate developers, 
whereas KDE is mostly volunteer.  Does this mean RH is wrong to use Gnome?
> People on the "front" of major Linux installations have to break such
> things down, and not just leave them to assumption and ignorance.
> Assumptions and ignorance are easily destroyed with Microsoft marketing.
> I know.  I've saved several of those people before.  ;)
>
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> Ultimately, I think even MS knows that it cannot continue like
>> this and expect to win.
>>     
>
> What is this "win" I keep hearing from alleged Open Source advocates?
> What is this "end game" that they seem to make up as if we're driving
> towards it?  The only thing I see is open collaboration, and we have
> that.  It's taking over more and more, but it's not a game, and it's not
> a "win/loss" detail.
>   
Win is total domination.

Really?  Open Colaboration?  Like what?  I'd like to start a Ms Office 
on Linux project.  Who do I call at MS to start that collaboration?

How about Instant Messaging Protocols?  (MS isn't alone here, admittedly).

MAPI standards?

You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as collaboration 
with MS, and you even alluded to it earlier when you talked about 
partnering with them.
> Microsoft knows open collaboration is a reality.  The question for not
> just Microsoft, but huge IP holders like IBM is, "how can we participate
> without losing our control and IP?"  To IBM, their model is based on IP
> and services, so it's somewhat compatible.  But with Microsoft, their
> model is distribution lock, and it's hard to keep that when you openly
> collaborate.
>   
Open collaboration == we win.
No collaboration == MS wins.

Does that more or less answer your question with your own statements?
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> What it can do is drain out as much cash for as long as
>> possible while the death spiral slowly winds down.
>>     
>
> Have you looked at Microsoft's balance sheets?  You think they are still
> a software company?  Interesting.  ;)
>
> Microsoft is a diversified investment firm.  Their only issue is that
> their profitability will go down at some point due to their high margin
> products no longer selling as much.  That's it.  They will still be
> around and a force to be dealt with, just like IBM, just like others
> before them, for a long time.
>
>   
 From an investor perspective, that might be true, but you've asked 
several times to look at things from a technical perspective, so why 
change here?

I don't care about their stock market performance, and I think it's 
completely (and obviously) different from their action as a technology 
company.  If they didn't care about their proprietary tech, they could 
open source everything they own (like RH or Postgres) and not lose.  But 
they can't and won't.  Because they'd immediately become irrelevant, and 
nobody would do business with them anymore.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> Lengthening that spiral is in their best interest, so it will attempt
>> to lock in as many users/organizations as possible, however, in spite
>> of that, I don't believe the death can be stopped.
>>     
>
> Microsoft will not go away.  Their profit margins may.  But they are
> well diversified for the long haul.  Make no mistake.  At some point in
> the near future, Microsoft may have to adopt a Google-like approach to
> software, and shift.  If they have to, they will.
>
>   
They will have to, and I agree they will.  The point is, they will delay 
that as long as possible, because they generally do not provide end 
users with anything close to a compelling reason to stick when them.
> Remember, Google is our partner as well, not necessarily our friend,
> just like IBM.
>
>   
Agreed.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> IBM had their day,
>>     
>
> And IBM can still smack the crap out of any company they want to.
> Should Novell or Red Hat piss them off one day, their IP portfolio could
> slaughter either in a matter of years.
>
>   
This is why IP should have FAR less legal protection than it currently 
has.  But yes, you're right, they could.
> That's why (and I've been regularly beat up over it) I've _warned_
> people about the lessons _missed_ in SCO v. IBM.  It begins back in
> 1999, not 2003.  Same deal with the Microsoft-Novell alliance, it's
> nothing new, even if people think it is.
>
> Ignorance of history in the software and open source world is what
> scares me the most out of 97% of alleged Linux and open source
> advocates.
>   

> Kevin Anderson wrote:
>   
>> Novell had their day,
>>     
>
> And it ended the second Ray Noorda differed with the Novell board over
> going Linux (Noorda) v. UNIX (board) in the early '90s.  They missed
> that boat until '99 after the database vendors came over after Microsoft
> blocked all sales of anything but MS SQL on Windows Servers at the
> Tier-1 PC OEM.
>
> Oh my how everything changed!  ;)
>   
I bet those companies see a win vs lose perspective.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> MS is at the end of having their day.  Of those, it seems that
>> only IBM has successfully continued to stand on their own.
>>     
>
> Because IBM is well diversified too.  Make no mistake, Microsoft is as
> well.  About the only thing IBM bests Microsoft at is responsible,
> non-saber rattling IP protection.  It's why Microsoft finds itself a
> victim of countless lawsuits, often settling, and why IBM doesn't, or
> wins regularly.
>   
IBM makes money on hardware.  REALLY GOOD hardware.  The most recent 
server I bought was an x460 for a hige ESX cluster.  With the capability 
to support 32 cores, and hundreds of gigs of ram, this was a bigger box 
than Windows could even use.  There was no competition for it.  There 
might be now, but there wasn't then.

IBM "sells" several OSes, such as the AS400, the S390, etc.  Each has 
it's own place.  They make much of their own hardware.  They sell end 
user software for desktops and servers of many sizes and flavors.

Windows has dropped support for hardware down to the x86 or the extended 
x86 line.  I don't believe they even support a true 64 bit processor any 
longer.  Certainly not RISC.  Their ventures into the embedded realm are 
half hearted at best, and consistently lose to Linux or other OSes when 
sold against another. 

Look at the Supercomputers.  Look at the older computers.  Look at the 
smaller or more portable computers.  IBM plays in all of these places.  
This is diversification.

MS needs a desktop.  They do not play anywhere else.  That's not 
diversification.  Even Cisco is better diversified.
> Kevin Anderson wrote:  
>   
>> And believe me, that's painful to say, I love Novell.
>>     
>
> Why is it painful?  I work for probably their biggest competitor outside
> of Microsoft, and I *LOVE* Novell!  I've gotten beaten up by people on
> this list, to "rabid" proportions, in the past for trying to correct
> false statements.  I have many, many colleagues who work at Novell and
> do not need such purposeful FUD, made in ignorance, affecting their
> jobs.
>   
Suse is Novell's last real kick before death.
> What is even more ironic is that it took an American company buying a
> German firm to finally make SuSE 100% GPL.  I will regularly praise
> Novell for all their outstanding contributions, and despise the common
> ignorance I see of those realities, especially those listening to an
> ignorant paralegal over at Groklaw.
>
>   
Yes, open sourcing Yast was a nice move, but by the time it happened, 
there were other, and better tools.
> And it's not that I question Novell's moves with Microsoft like I did
> Sun's prior.  I just don't think it serves them well long-term.  That's
> why I have always defended Red Hat heavily, and always will, until I see
> Red Hat change its direction.  Red Hat is still the sole, major,
> commercial Linux entity "that actually gets it."  And that continues to
> dominate it's attitude, and its core investors at least see that.
>   
Who cares about the investors?
> Even if the rest of the "quick buck" Wall Street does not.
>   
Again, why does wall street matter at all if you want a technical 
discussion.