
Bill Gates: “Our Most Potent Operating System Competitor is Linux” - rms
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/23/bill-gates-afraid-of-gnu-linux/
======
rythie
As everything moves into the browser they become irrelevant. A large
proportion of the 'cloud' runs on Linux and the client doesn't really matter
so long as it runs a decent web browser and that can Linux, OS X or Windows at
this point.

------
joeycfan
You're screwed, Bill.

Linux is following Windows like Frankenstein's monster - slow but inexorable.

Eventually a version of Linux (probably an Ubuntu version) will surpass
Windows in every way and the tipping point will have been reached.

MS is not longer a buy.

------
lionhearted
Links to all the memos cited are here:

<http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/gates-exhibits/>

Worth taking a look at those links - the most interesting part for me was
getting a feel for his casual writing style to his staff. Very blunt, but the
quotes don't get it quite right - they're just excerpts of a line or two from
longer, coherent thoughts. Worth taking a look at the originals.

------
iigs
This is presumably the genesis of several directives that resulted in
derailing Vista (mentions "Blackcomb", currently the codename for W7, I guess,
but were eventually targets for "Longhorn", now Vista, see:
<http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp> ), specifically the SQL FS, as
part of Yukon. Ooops.

You can see Mr. Gates struggling with positioning the OS as something more
than a web browser, but seems to miss a point that (in retrospect, I suppose)
seems pretty obvious to me:

 _I want us to be able to construct rich UI easily simply by editing an XML
document. I want us to be able to bind to XML data easily using the new forms
environment. We have compatibility issues to consider with all of the above
systems. Trident will be a piece of the solution as the HTML displayer but it
will likely not be at the center of the system._

This is the directive (I suspect) that resulted in XAML. The concept is great,
I suppose, and would certainly be convenient for building business
applications, but you can, crudely speaking, think of a web browser as a
device that turns an XML (HTML) document into native labels, buttons and drop-
down boxes. To reduce the [presentation layer of an] OS to the moral
equivalent of a freebie competitor software seems counterproductive. I don't
know what a better response would be, though.

It's also interesting to note that most of the explicit technical directives
(make a new graphics driver model: check -- vista) were met but one that would
have arguably done the most to stem the migration away from Win32 applications
to web applications was ignored, or bungled to the point of non-recognition:
software distribution and reducing the barriers to entry for installing and
using additional applications. It's so much easier to get semi-trustworthy
binaries onto my Debian or FreeBSD (ignoring Fedora or Ubuntu because it's
2001 in this email) machines than onto anything Windows even in 2009. I
suspect things would have been a lot different if they'd focused more effort
on a site and delivery executables for application distribution and support,
and then shipped them in the Windows Update suggested downloads area.

Man I'm glad I don't have to defend an empire. Not saying it wouldn't have
been nice to collect the taxes on one for a while though. :)

------
skwaddar
It's like choosing which dogshit to tread in.

------
dsturnbull
Site zoomed down to an inline IRC client. WTF? _immediately closes tab_

~~~
buugs
I'm thinking it is unexpected side effect of the embedded client rather than
site design.. article wasn't much of anything anyways.

------
jsz0
Although this document is old the thing that strikes me reading it is how
utterly irrelevant and cryptic it is/was. Perhaps the closed nature of
Microsoft's technologies makes it harder to understand but isn't that the
problem? I don't know why I might want my Federation server to talk to my
extranet server through passport via Yukon calls, based on the BizTalk
platform, and highly integrated with the CLR but only for a 3 month trial
period if my Office license is up to date. Assuming of course my Trident
version is new enough to support my VS Forms. I'll have to check my MSMQ in
MMC first though.

~~~
jodrellblank
It's an internal memo, not a Microsoft HOWTO - it's not trying to explain to
you what the jargon means.

You can't take competing technologies and tell me they have any _fewer_
awkward acronyms, buzzwords, competing technologies, license limitations,
interconnectivity and so on.

~~~
jsz0
That's true. I understand that angle of it. I just think Microsoft should be
asking themselves what can we do to improve the experience of 90% of our users
instead of spending all our time worrying about how to improve the amount of
money we make from the 10% of our most profitable users which is, I think,
what all this jargon adds up to. It seems like with Windows 7 they have taken
the 90% approach more so than in recent years which is certainly a good thing.

------
otoburb
Fascinating insight into the level of visionary thought that goes into
managing a sprawling product portfolio fighting for survival. This is an
excellent read if only to appreciate the level of complexity that Microsoft
deals with at the top.

~~~
bad_user
Their business model is coming to an end. What keeps them going is the large
customer base and Windows-specific applications people are accustomed to.

Historically advancement in technology does tend to have this effect on
businesses.

The operating systems and dev platforms are a commodity and of course people
are wondering why should they pay for this stuff when you can get them for
free. Not to mention alternatives are often technologically superior and have
stronger communities, and because of their closed-nature they really can't do
anything about it.

I would like to say that competition benefits consumers, but because Microsoft
can still exert a huge influence on the industry without technical merits,
consumers won't benefit until they reinvent themselves. I know they will, but
it may take some time.

~~~
froo
_"Their business model is coming to an end."_

Do you have any data supporting your claim or is this just a gut feeling?

Here's what we know about MS's business model (I just quickly skim read their
annual reports to gather these figures).

Revenue in 2008 was $60.8 Billion, up 18% from the previous year

Revenue in 2007 was $51.12 Billion, up 17% from the previous year

Revenue in 2006 was $44.28 Billion, up 11% from the previous year

Revenue in 2005 was $39.79 Billion, up by about $3 billion from the previous
year

Revenue in 2004 was $36.8 Billion, up by 14% from the previous year

Revenue in 2003 was $32.19 Billion, up by $3.82 billion from the previous year

Revenue in 2002 was $28.37 billion, up by $3.07 billion on the previous year

So since the date these internal memo's were written, their business has only
managed to steadily grow each and every year by more than 10% per year, with
their total revenue having doubled since these memo's were written.

Or that Microsoft's growth alone in 2008 was around half of internet golden-
child Google's total revenue for the same period?

Yes, their business model is coming to an end, they really should be
scared.... </sarcasm>

(Disclosure: I don't work for microsoft, or a competitor, nor am I an
investor. I'm just sick of the unnecessary FUD)

~~~
bad_user
@froo, you do have a point, but revenue is not profit.

I'm saying their business model will come to an end because of recent trends
and advancement in technology:

* I don't know of many companies that still sell prepackaged software. I don't know of any startups either, and while there might be examples of such startups, the majority are moving to something else. YMMV

* Their forays in new markets aren't generating profit (besides the XBox, which I think is doing quite well)

* PCs will be soon surpassed by smart-phones. The latest Windows Mobile looks promising, and while they were quick to enter this market, it's head to head with Linux, and Symbian has something like ~ 60% of the market share

* people are accustomed to not pay for products that are becoming a commodity (especially on the Web). Windows is bundled with every PC, so that's good, but where I live I see more and more companies using OpenOffice (those that don't are still using Microsoft Office because either they don't know better, or their infrastructure is based on Exchange). It's not that OpenOffice is better, but it's good enough for basic needs and it's free.

* I have inside knowledge about Adobe and I can tell you for sure that they are having a hard time justifying the price for CS4 to customers that already paid for CS3. It's not like CS4 isn't a good product, but this economic recession does make people wonder if the value provided is good enough.

These trends aren't very encouraging for me. I still have to make a living.
But that's what people and businesses always did ... adapt to new conditions.

And btw ... FUD is not an incorrect statement, neither something you disagree
with. FUD is an incorrect statement done with a clear intent to discredit a
competitor. Please, stop polluting the term.

Disclaimer: I don't have an inclination to prove my statements with numbers,
which makes me susceptible to cargo-culting and being gullible. I do have the
tendency to check my assumptions from time to time, and I am not anti-
Microsoft, I'm just pro-technology and I don't dismiss their products or their
achievements out of religions beliefs (I happen to be a happy user of .NET in
several personal smallish projects)

~~~
froo
_"@froo, you do have a point, but revenue is not profit."_

Fine, let's investigate that.

MS's profit for: 2008 = $37.9 billion 2007 = $32.6 billion 2006 = $27.81
billion

.. and so on, I can't be bothered entering in the rest of the figures, but the
trend is that MS's profit aswell as revenue are increasing year over year (It
will be a different tune this year, but that's because of the economic
slowdown, not a business failing on MS's part). So you're wrong. They appear
to give about half of this profit to their shareholders each year.

 _"I don't know of many companies that still sell prepackaged software."_

You mean like Oracle, Autodesk, Adobe, Apple, SAP... should I go on?

 _PCs will be soon surpassed by smart-phones._

I don't think desktop computing will be replaced any time soon - whether that
be a PC, notebook or a netbook is a different matter, but there will be room
for desktop computing for a long time to come. Smartphones might have a lot
going for them, but they lack the tactile feedback of a keyboard, mouse and
screen combo. Almost nobody in their right mind will be using smartphones in
lieu of a desktop computer for their day to day work. It's just not going to
happen, sorry.

 _"And btw ... FUD is not an incorrect statement, neither something you
disagree with. FUD is an incorrect statement done with a clear intent to
discredit a competitor"_

Actually, FUD is not necessarily used to discredit competitors as it has a
much broader use in language today. Individuals (or organisations) who spread
untrue, inaccurate or poorly researched information knowingly with the intent
of discrediting an organisation or person can be said to be spreading FUD.
It's even more apparent when somebody does it with a clear bias (which you
obviously have a general negative bias with MS, despite you using .net), sort
of like propaganda, because if you had spent 2 or 3 minutes to look at MS's
annual reports, you would see your argument is wrong.

 _"I do have the tendency to check my assumptions from time to time"_

Just not this time, not even in the slightest bit.

