I stopped reading half away, when i read MS Linux for the third time.
I don't like that... Not at all !
What MS needs to do, is making its own applications open source, so they
can be enhanced (and ported).
What I don't like, is MS building on a linux platform. I think this
will give a whole new, negative dimension on so called open source.
Let MS focus on regular home-PC-users and basic desktop-systems, and let
linux for the people who want more... There is no way MS (the cpy) can
work together with Linux, because the overall goals of both 'projects'
are too different.
I'm not against MS, but I'm pro linux! Er... sometimes I am against MS
:-)
Steven
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 17:23, Alan Dunford wrote:
A friend sent this to me - thought it might be of some interest!!!
--
This story was printed fromZDNN ,This message was forwarded
to you from ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com)
Dear Steve: Time for Microsoft Linux?
By David Coursey, AnchorDesk
June 8, 2003 9:00 PM PT
Dear Steve Ballmer:
Concerning Linux and your memo/exhortation of June 4, I'm
pleased to see you've finally recognized--publicly, at least--the
threat posed to Microsoft by Linux.
Some in the Linux community must imagine you with a sort of
deer in the headlights look, not quite sure of your fate but
certain it can't be good. They could see your memo as a
legitimization of Linux, an admission by Goliath that David has a
point after all. The Linux hardcore must be hooting and hollering
and marking June 4 as a future national day of liberation from the
evil empire.
I THINK they have it backwards. I think Linux proponents are the
ones who should be afraid.
Why? Because Microsoft has been in this situation before and,
once the battleship was turned, fought and won. Your company also
ended up being declared a monopoly, making a deal with the feds, and
spending large millions on legal fees. But what's that to
Microsoft's multibillion-dollar war chest?
You remember the fall of 1995? Back then, people thought
Microsoft was hopelessly late in acknowledging the existence of
something called the Internet. Competitors were popping up, the
industry was abuzz, and Microsoft was nowhere to be found.
As I remember, Microsoft had some important projects to finish
the previous summer, in particular a little something called Windows
95. But by December, once that had shipped and people had a chance
to rest and regroup, Bill invited the media up to Microsoft for a
talk about the Internet.
That turned out to be one of the most fateful days in personal
computing history. Bill told several hundred reporters that
Microsoft wouldn't be building Internet products. Instead, it
would be putting the Internet into all Microsoft products. Every
future Microsoft product would have Internet capabilities
built-in.
NOW, I'M NOT SURE your June 4 memo is the same war cry I heard
nearly eight years ago. But if I were Linux and faced with the
prospect of Microsoft throwing everything it could at me, I'd
find some way to get out of your path.
Here's my suggestion for how Microsoft should deal with Linux:
Don't beat 'em, join 'em.
Do a release of MS Linux. Create Office for Linux. Improve Linux
support in your development tools. Do such a good job of
embracing and extending Linux that the world won't care when you
essentially annex it for your own. A more cynical person than myself
might add: Then you can kill it. I won't, because I believe Linux
deserves to live.
I think this is the only way Microsoft can both give its
customers what they want and manage the threat Linux poses on
something approaching your own terms.
The first question people will immediately ask is: How can
Microsoft participate in an open operating system? Two ways:
First, by making it as robust an OS as possible. Second, by
creating a collection of services and applications that run atop
Linux that only Microsoft controls.
The goal here is to shift the competition away from commodity
operating systems running on commodity computers. Instead, you
should compete on services that sit atop the OS, tools to build
applications for it, and integration between the OS and other
servers and desktops in the Microsoft world.
The second inevitable question: What about Linux on the desktop?
While Apple has proven with OS X that a really great desktop can
be built atop Unix, I'm not sure how far Microsoft wants to go
down this road. There should probably be an Office for MS Linux,
because some people will want to run Office on Linux desktops.
But I'd probably stop there.
BY ADOPTING Linux as its own, Microsoft can
