Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?
Recently, Microsoft made a minor change in their list of competitors by quietly discounting Linux as a major threat to their empire. It wasn’t a conspicuous change though, as only about 2 or 3 million users out of the 20 million Linux users managed to notice it. Out of those 2 million, only a few hundred users who weren’t in such a good mood that day managed to give a damn about it. What’s more, some Linuxians felt quite happy about Microsoft finally acknowledging the fact that Linux was never a threat; a powerful kick up the backside maybe, but threat? No way!
. . . no, not Steve Ballmer, the other 800-pound gorilla in the room is that Microsoft used to file its annual 10-K report to the Security and Exchange Commission, stating (as they're required to) that one of the threats to their business model is Linux and Free/Open Source Software. In 2008, the Microsoft 10-K filing stated the following:
“Our business model has been based upon customers paying a fee to license software that we developed and distributed . . . . In recent years, certain 'open source' software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license . . . . A prominent example of open source software is the Linux operating system. Although we believe our products provide customers with significant advantages in security, productivity and total cost of ownership, the popularization of the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model including continuing efforts by proponents of open source software to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products."
[As an aside, I wrote a blog about this in 2008 and I have gotten multiple hits on that item every day ever since. Every day.]
The SEC filing has to state things like this in order to paint a realistic picture and allows the corporation to cover it's corporate butt by saying, "See? We told you there were some risks."
Now, for this year, it seems the 10-K adds other factors that would hinder Microsoft. It removes the language that considers Linux a threat and replaces it with Apple and Google, according to Brian Proffitt's article on the same issue.
Now is it me, or is this a frying-pan-into-the-fire situation? I mean, having to fight Linux is one thing -- but now having to face off with Apple (which is in far better financial straits than Microsoft) and Google (which is in far better financial straits than Apple AND Microsoft) makes me want to ask one question: Are the happy-dancing Windows fanbois so happy about Linux being "vanquished" (at least in SEC filings) really that stupid? Would you rather face two stronger adversaries than one smaller one?
Brian points out in his article as well that Google's ChromeOS is, um, Linux and . . . um, there something I'm forgetting
Oh yeah: Android, which is cleaning everyone's clock in the mobile realm, including Apple, and in an area where Microsoft has yet to leave the proverbial runway. Need I say more?
Thanks to all who reached this point and stayed awake.
All Microsoft has going for it is lockin and inertia. They don't have products anyone really cares about, except Xbox. Their official slogan ought to be "Less suckage this time! No really, measurably less!" It's a bit odd to leave Linux out of their SEC filing since it's in their interest to say "See, we are not a monopoly. No, we are teh victim!" Ballmer has been a disaster of a CEO. Seems they could also include themselves as a competitive menace along with Google and Apple.
Windows fanbois have their own special reality distortion fields.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
“Our business model has been based upon customers paying a fee to license software that we developed and distributed . . . . In recent years, certain 'open source' software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license . . . . A prominent example of open source software is the Linux operating system. Although we believe our products provide customers with significant advantages in security, productivity and total cost of ownership, the popularization of the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model including continuing efforts by proponents of open source software to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products."
[As an aside, I wrote a blog about this in 2008 and I have gotten multiple hits on that item every day ever since. Every day.]
The SEC filing has to state things like this in order to paint a realistic picture and allows the corporation to cover it's corporate butt by saying, "See? We told you there were some risks."
Now, for this year, it seems the 10-K adds other factors that would hinder Microsoft. It removes the language that considers Linux a threat and replaces it with Apple and Google, according to Brian Proffitt's article on the same issue.
Link: http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/192879/microsoft-disr...
Now is it me, or is this a frying-pan-into-the-fire situation? I mean, having to fight Linux is one thing -- but now having to face off with Apple (which is in far better financial straits than Microsoft) and Google (which is in far better financial straits than Apple AND Microsoft) makes me want to ask one question: Are the happy-dancing Windows fanbois so happy about Linux being "vanquished" (at least in SEC filings) really that stupid? Would you rather face two stronger adversaries than one smaller one?
Brian points out in his article as well that Google's ChromeOS is, um, Linux and . . . um, there something I'm forgetting
Oh yeah: Android, which is cleaning everyone's clock in the mobile realm, including Apple, and in an area where Microsoft has yet to leave the proverbial runway. Need I say more?
Thanks to all who reached this point and stayed awake.
[Edited to fix spelling]