Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.” - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.” - Linux ; "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie." [...] http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1418 -RFH...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

  1. Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”


    "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    [...]

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1418

    -RFH


  2. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."


    How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    Microsoft?


  3. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    > > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    > > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >
    > How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    > Microsoft?



    In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    Linux.

    One year later, the top competitors were the same, but their order was
    reversed.

    This could have been the basis for a class action lawsuit by
    stockholders, who could have wondered: "How come the word Linux was
    not even mentioned one year, and the following year it was the second -
    and later the first- competitor?"

    -Ramon


  4. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >
    > How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > amateurish, buggy and incomplete.


    No doubt whatsoever.


    > How could that be a threat to Microsoft?


    He said "potential" threat, but of course it's an actual threat.

    No matter how bad it is - and it mostly reeks to high heaven - it has one
    thing going for it:

    It's free of cost. That alone will garner significant interest.

    And don't be so keen on taking their words at face value. Part of any
    successful corporate PR strategy is covering your ass and making it clear
    you have competition that could materially affect your financial results.
    If it happens you can't be indicted as a negligent corporate officer, and if
    it doesn't you claim you're superior to the competition. MS is superior to
    the competition, so far.

    Linux has had basically zero effect on Windows desktop sales or prices, and
    I would guess very little on Windows server sales or prices, too (most Linux
    server installs are Unix replacements).

    OpenOffice is, I would think, being put into use in small businesses and
    non-profits and churches and schools at a decent rate, etc. But it sure
    hasn't made a dent in Office 2007 sales - which have been the juggernaut of
    the software industry over the last year.

    MySQL might be taking some SQL Server (and Oracle) share, but it's not in
    the same niches.





  5. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Sourcehas made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera writes:

    > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > wrote:
    >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >>
    >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> Microsoft?

    >
    >
    > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).
    >
    > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.
    >
    > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.


    >
    > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    > Linux.


    You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.

    >
    > One year later, the top competitors were the same, but their order was
    > reversed.
    >
    > This could have been the basis for a class action lawsuit by
    > stockholders, who could have wondered: "How come the word Linux was
    > not even mentioned one year, and the following year it was the second -
    > and later the first- competitor?"


    One thing the 'net has taught me is that anyone who waffles on about
    class action lawsuits is usually as thick as pig **** and totally
    clueless about what is going on. I congratulate you.

    Look : Linux has dislodged MS from just about nowhere. Linux is not even
    a blip. And the GOOD OSS runs on Windows too and, if anything, is liable
    to have people abandon LINUX *UNLESS* it gets its act together and
    produces a working Distro which CAN replace Windows for the general
    Desktop user.

  6. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 9, 9:40 pm, Hadron wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    > >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    > >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >
    > >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    > >> Microsoft?

    >
    > > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    > > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    > > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    > > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    > > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >
    > > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    > > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >
    > > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    > > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    > > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >
    > > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    > > Linux.

    >


    > You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.


    Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    Linux". There is a video of that.

    As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    effect affect is the same.

    Ergo, you are the confuser and the confused one, buddy.

    My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    sweep crappy and shameful source code under.

    -Ramon


  7. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Sourcehas made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera writes:

    > On Jun 9, 9:40 pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ramon F Herrera writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >> >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >>
    >> >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> >> Microsoft?

    >>
    >> > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    >> > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    >> > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    >> > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    >> > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >>
    >> > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    >> > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >>
    >> > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    >> > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    >> > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >>
    >> > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    >> > Linux.

    >>

    >
    > > You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.

    >
    > Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    > here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    > saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    > Linux". There is a video of that.


    Lovely. You're doing it again.

    >
    > As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    > "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    > buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    > effect affect is the same.


    Huh?

    >
    > Ergo, you are the confuser and the confused one, buddy.


    Huh?

    >
    > My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    > sweep crappy and shameful source code under.


    Huh? Are you insane?

    >
    > -Ramon
    >


    --
    "At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
    customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our
    services, allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
    Mark Kent,Head of Technology Strategy,COLA Hypocrite

  8. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > wrote:
    >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >>> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >>> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> Microsoft?

    >
    >
    > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).
    >
    > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.
    >
    > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law-


    "as required by law"????

    Huh?

    > claimed that
    > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.
    >
    > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    > Linux.
    >
    > One year later, the top competitors were the same, but their order was
    > reversed.
    >
    > This could have been the basis for a class action lawsuit by
    > stockholders, who could have wondered: "How come the word Linux was
    > not even mentioned one year, and the following year it was the second -
    > and later the first- competitor?"
    >
    > -Ramon


    I don't buy that "as required by law" part.

    Steve

  9. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 9, 10:58 pm, Steve de Mena wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > >>> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    > >>> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    > >>> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."
    > >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    > >> Microsoft?

    >
    > > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    > > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    > > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    > > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    > > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >
    > > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    > > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >
    > > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law-

    >
    > "as required by law"????
    >
    > Huh?
    >
    >
    >
    > > claimed that
    > > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    > > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >
    > > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    > > Linux.

    >
    > > One year later, the top competitors were the same, but their order was
    > > reversed.

    >
    > > This could have been the basis for a class action lawsuit by
    > > stockholders, who could have wondered: "How come the word Linux was
    > > not even mentioned one year, and the following year it was the second -
    > > and later the first- competitor?"

    >
    > > -Ramon

    >
    > I don't buy that "as required by law" part.
    >
    > Steve


    Please don't tell me that you are an American. Ever been to college?
    Small wonder our once great country is in the dumps lately.

    -RFH


  10. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    > here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    > saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    > Linux". There is a video of that.


    I'd like to see it. Where's the link?



    > As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    > "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    > buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    > effect affect is the same.


    MS has very rarely attacked open source.



    > My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    > sweep crappy and shameful source code under.


    What a joke. The Linux kernel seems like a quality product, but other than
    that nearly all MS products make the Linux "alternative" look like the
    hobbyist, amateurish crap it really is. It's easy to prove to yourself -
    just read through the Ubuntu forums for some real howlers:

    Note that MS doesn't use 'hobbyist' as a pejorative term, but I sure do when
    it comes to describing much of the junk apps and games that come out of the
    OSS world.

    MS is a valuable business because they keep their source code under wraps.
    Linux has to be given away - and still few takers - because it makes its
    source available.

    Finally, I see you're using Windows... like a good Linux "advocate" does.





  11. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Sourcehas made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera writes:

    > On Jun 9, 9:40 pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ramon F Herrera writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >> >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >>
    >> >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> >> Microsoft?

    >>
    >> > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    >> > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    >> > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    >> > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    >> > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >>
    >> > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    >> > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >>
    >> > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    >> > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    >> > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >>
    >> > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    >> > Linux.

    >>

    >
    > > You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.

    >
    > Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    > here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    > saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    > Linux". There is a video of that.
    >
    > As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    > "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    > buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    > effect affect is the same.
    >
    > Ergo, you are the confuser and the confused one, buddy.
    >
    > My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    > sweep crappy and shameful source code under.


    But what do you need to stop poasting from a Windows machine you two
    faced hypocrite?

    --
    "Every piece of evidence I've heard from developers inside Microsoft
    supports my theory that the company has become completely tangled up in
    "
    -- William Poaster in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  12. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 9, 11:10 pm, Hadron wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 9, 9:40 pm, Hadron wrote:
    > >> Ramon F Herrera writes:

    >
    > >> > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    > >> >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    > >> >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >
    > >> >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > >> >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    > >> >> Microsoft?

    >
    > >> > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    > >> > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    > >> > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    > >> > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    > >> > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >
    > >> > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    > >> > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >
    > >> > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    > >> > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    > >> > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >
    > >> > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    > >> > Linux.

    >
    > > > You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.

    >
    > > Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    > > here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    > > saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    > > Linux". There is a video of that.

    >
    > > As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    > > "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    > > buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    > > effect affect is the same.

    >
    > > Ergo, you are the confuser and the confused one, buddy.

    >
    > > My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    > > sweep crappy and shameful source code under.

    >


    > But what do you need to stop posting from a Windows machine [...]



    Let me reiterate this. The people on my side have freedom of speech,
    we have plenty of dignity. We can hold any opinion and use any
    operating system or application software.

    You on the other side -by definition- have no personality, dignity or
    appreciation for freedom of choice.

    You take your orders and cues from other people who you deem superior.

    -RFH


  13. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 10, 12:06 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > ...that you immediately betrayed by posting the lies that "Microsoft
    > acknowledged their fault in the European case" and they "didn't even bother
    > to appeal the [EU] findings." Both are false.
    >



    "The other thing we decided to do was not appeal to the European Court
    of Justice. We've had our most important appellate opportunity. We got
    a fairly clear signal back from the Court of First Instance. I think
    we have to recognize we are where we are and we're going to work very
    constructively with the commission going forward."

    Steve Ballmer.

    http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-Calling...6215128-2.html

    -RFH



  14. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    On Jun 10, 12:06 am, "DFS" wrote:

    > ...that you immediately betrayed by posting the lies that "Microsoft
    > acknowledged their fault in the European case" and they "didn't even bother
    > to appeal the [EU] findings." Both are false.
    >



    "Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) immediately said that the company was
    now working under *NEW* principles to make its products more open."

    http://tinyurl.com/46jhx6

    -RFH



  15. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: "Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company."

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jun 10, 12:06 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> ...that you immediately betrayed by posting the lies that "Microsoft
    >> acknowledged their fault in the European case" and they "didn't even
    >> bother to appeal the [EU] findings." Both are false.
    >>

    >
    >
    > "The other thing we decided to do was not appeal to the European Court
    > of Justice. We've had our most important appellate opportunity. We got
    > a fairly clear signal back from the Court of First Instance. I think
    > we have to recognize we are where we are and we're going to work very
    > constructively with the commission going forward."
    >
    > Steve Ballmer.
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-Calling...6215128-2.html





    April 2006: "Microsoft is appealing against a 2004 ruling when Brussels told
    it to change how it sells its Media Player software and fined it 497m euros
    ($613m; Ł344m)." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4953682.stm


    May 2008: "Microsoft today filed to the Court of First Instance an
    application to annul the European Commission decision of February 27," the
    U.S. software giant said in a statement."
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/...ogy/09msft.php


    And where did they "acknowledge their fault in the European case"?






  16. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 10:58 pm, Steve de Mena wrote:
    >> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>> On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>>> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >>>>> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >>>>> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."
    >>>> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >>>> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >>>> Microsoft?
    >>> In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    >>> fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    >>> strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    >>> and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    >>> an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).
    >>> In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    >>> been: the Internet and Open Source Software.
    >>> One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law-

    >> "as required by law"????
    >>
    >> Huh?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> claimed that
    >>> its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    >>> purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.
    >>> The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    >>> Linux.
    >>> One year later, the top competitors were the same, but their order was
    >>> reversed.
    >>> This could have been the basis for a class action lawsuit by
    >>> stockholders, who could have wondered: "How come the word Linux was
    >>> not even mentioned one year, and the following year it was the second -
    >>> and later the first- competitor?"
    >>> -Ramon

    > > I don't buy that "as required by law" part.
    > > Steve

    >
    > Please don't tell me that you are an American. Ever been to college?
    > Small wonder our once great country is in the dumps lately.
    >
    > -RFH


    Thank you. That explained where the "as required by law" came from.

    That was a real professional citation.

    I actually think you got Steve Balmer quotes from emails he sent out
    company-wide to employees, but am always willing to hear how these
    were Microsoft "as required by law" requirements.

    Steve

  17. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: ???Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.???

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond???s Chief
    >> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >
    > How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    > amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    > Microsoft?
    >


    Because Windows is just as amateurish, buggy and incomplete? Just in
    different areas?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  18. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: “Open Sourcehas made Microsoft a much stronger company.”

    Ramon F Herrera writes:

    > On Jun 9, 11:10 pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ramon F Herrera writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Jun 9, 9:40 pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> >> Ramon F Herrera writes:

    >>
    >> >> > On Jun 9, 7:34 pm, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >> >> > wrote:
    >> >> >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >> > "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >> >> >> > competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond’s Chief
    >> >> >> > Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >>
    >> >> >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> >> >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> >> >> Microsoft?

    >>
    >> >> > In their lifetime, Microsoft has perceived with no small amount of
    >> >> > fear, two movements that it cannot possibly control. Their initial
    >> >> > strategic reaction has been typical: just bury the head in the sand,
    >> >> > and the menace will disappear. Microsoft likes to think that they are
    >> >> > an immovable object (at least in regards to those two forces).

    >>
    >> >> > In case the reader needs to be told, the two irresistible forces have
    >> >> > been: the Internet and Open Source Software.

    >>
    >> >> > One year (forgot which) Microsoft -as required by law- claimed that
    >> >> > its number one competitor was IBM and some other company. The
    >> >> > purposely chose to keep the head deep in the sand and ignored Linux.

    >>
    >> >> > The next year, the two main competitors were, in that order, IBM and
    >> >> > Linux.

    >>
    >> > > You appear to be confusing Linux for OSS. Again.

    >>
    >> > Not really. Very recently, Blamer reiterated that fact. I posted it
    >> > here. He was asked: "who is your greatest competitor?" and he started
    >> > saying: "open sour..., actually, I shouldn't say open source, but
    >> > Linux". There is a video of that.

    >>
    >> > As part of their confusion, they are becoming aware that attacking
    >> > "open source" is the same as attacking people. Whether yo call them
    >> > buyers, voters, citizens, clients, whatever: the counterproductive
    >> > effect affect is the same.

    >>
    >> > Ergo, you are the confuser and the confused one, buddy.

    >>
    >> > My camp is crystal clear and self-consistent. We don't need rugs to
    >> > sweep crappy and shameful source code under.

    >>

    >
    >> But what do you need to stop posting from a Windows machine [...]

    >
    >
    > Let me reiterate this. The people on my side have freedom of speech,
    > we have plenty of dignity. We can hold any opinion and use any
    > operating system or application software.
    >
    > You on the other side -by definition- have no personality, dignity or
    > appreciation for freedom of choice.


    Totally wrong. I chose Ubuntu. I then chose Debian. I then chose to
    contribute back to moving everything, including my laptop, to Debian
    Testing.

    You do not seem to know much about me at all other than I DO use Linux
    for ALL my "needs" whereas you are a two faced hypocrite.

    >
    > You take your orders and cues from other people who you deem superior.


    I wouldn't take them from any one else. But quite what you mean I have
    no idea in this context.

    --
    "I do believe I have stated that he should be given the benefit of the
    doubt, as is his right. If he did this crime, as it would seem, then he
    should be punished as the law requires."
    -- alt in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  19. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: ???Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.???

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >> On Jun 9, 3:01 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>> "Google has nothing on open source when it comes to potential
    >>> competitive threats to Microsoft, according to Redmond???s Chief
    >>> Software Architect Ray Ozzie."

    >>
    >> How can that be? According to DFS, open source "slopware" is
    >> amateurish, buggy and incomplete. How could that be a threat to
    >> Microsoft?
    >>

    >
    > Because Windows is just as amateurish, buggy and incomplete? Just in
    > different areas?


    Yet more than 90% of desktop users use it daily with no issues. What is
    it with simple desktop OSs that confuses you Andrew?

    --
    "I program Windows systems yes. But I am not a Windows user."
    Peter Koehlmann, COLA.

  20. Re: Microsoft's Chief Architect: ???Open Source has made Microsoft a much stronger company.???

    Hadron wrote:
    >> Because Windows is just as amateurish, buggy and incomplete? Just in
    >> different areas?

    >
    > Yet more than 90% of desktop users use it daily with no issues.


    How odd... I'd say much more than 90% of users use linux daily with no
    issues...

    did you have a point?

    > What is
    > it with simple desktop OSs that confuses you Andrew?


    Absolutely nothing. What confuses you?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast