But the morals of a corporation are directed from the top.
I just came back from the EU vs. Microsoft anti-trust hearings in Brussels. I was a witness there (hint for Robert, I wasn't there on behalf of Microsoft 
.
The evidence I saw there suprised me. Microsoft is *worse* than I imagined in your behavior in the marketplace. Concrete, documented examples of extreme corporate malfeasance.
You really need to understand who you're working for Robert. If you really did, I think you might be looking for another job so you could feel good about yourself.
Jeremy.
Jeremy, you offering me a job?
Got a URL that reports on what was reported there?
Just for the record: I feel just fine about myself. This company is doing important work. Work that'll affect millions of people.
I'd love to offer you a job somewhere, but I don't manage anybody . Maybe once I'm a CTO at a Linux company I can bring you over from the dark side .
I can't give a url on reports there as we are under some pretty strict confidentiality rules about what happened in the proceedings. Some things have leaked to the press (not from me I might add) about the Real Networks presentations, you should try a google search - I think the WSJ had some reports.
I'm hoping more will be able to be revealed once the EU makes whatever decision it's going to make (whenever that will be, who knows .
Jeremy.
Jeremy,
The bits I've seen in the news leave me under the impression that the EU, like the US, seems to think that opening the door for existing established competitors (ie Real) is a sufficient solution to the desktop problem.
Making the playing field level for a few large players doesn't really seem like much of an improvement to me.
The problem isn't the people at Microsoft, it's the "win at any costs" mentality that's soaked itself into the walls in the buildings. You can change employees over and over, but the corporate culture takes far longer than 100% churn to disappear.
http://dsandler.org/gruntle/corp...porate-culture/
There's nothing wrong with pleasing your investors. When your goal is to win a market by utterly decimating all others by any means necessary, however, is when you become a monopoly and end up with that stigma Microsoft has.
The thing that *really* gets me is that Microsoft's latest anti-OSS push is "we respect IP" and "IP is something that needs protection", yet there seems to be a story every month or so with Microsoft ripping off technology demoed to them (Symbian? some sort of SmartPhone demo) or violating a patent (Timeline, Eolas, etc.).
These two-faced statements from big MS execs really tick me off. At least they're starting to get noticed by big tech columnists and journalists that happily ignored them earlier.
No building 33 address for TomB, eh? Yeah, a lot of us have had a hard time getting offices in the conference center.
Ed, yeah, I forgot it's 34. Heh.
Jeremy: I feel the same way you do. One thing I've done is actually interview some of the people inside Microsoft about some of the "famous" cases. What I've found is that there is a story that can't or isn't be told and that you aren't hearing in many (not all) of these cases.
Business is often harsh and when you have tons of business units run by 22-year-old kids straight out of school who are trying to make their mark on the world, you often see behavior that isn't right.
Personally, I've done some of that stuff in my past too (not at Microsoft). But, I learned that you don't really get ahead that way and you tend to get in trouble and make trouble all around you if you take that approach.
I've found that people do business with people they like more often than not so I try to go for a win-win. Make everyone happy. It's a better way to go. But, not everyone looks at the world that way. Look at Wallmart stories that are coming out now and how they treat their suppliers. It's tough being in business. I know. I had to lay myself off at UserLand. That ain't fun.
The problem is that most of the past is unknown. I feel that as long as you are ethical, compete as you see fit. Just make sure you are ethical. It is also a proven fact that monopolies are bad for the consumers, so you have to stay away from that line at all costs. But, on the other hand, why compete to be second, or even better yet, when should one stop competing because they might be seen as a monopoly. The software business is a very strange industry to be tried against laws created in the 1900’s. I personally feel that the laws should be updated to include recent advancements. Microsoft has at least 15 man years in their current operating system, and if the other competitors die, it is sort of hard not to become a monopoly.
Sorry Ryan, doesn't work that way. If your competitors die because of your use of monopolistic practices (bundling, tying, etc.), you are a monopoly and will likely face consequences. There's a reason that these anti-monopoly laws were created - and it's to prevent companies like Microsoft from excluding others from the marketplace.
Robert: unfortunately, your "win at all cost" business units are the ones giving your company a black eye. You can't say that Mr. Ballmer isn't going out of his way to trash-talk any possible alternative (see his recent comments about the GPL).
You're working at a company where the leaders are spreading "anti-american" rumours about open source. Is this fair competition? I can't see how you can justify that as the "capitalist system". If/when Microsoft ever decides that they'll embrace interoperability with others, or even stop spreading their anti-business rhetoric about OSS, I might take your words as something other that a fantasy.
I'm sure that if you cut out the nasty bits, we might end up with a friendly, healthy competitor Microsoft, but the reality is that they exist. Don't try and distance yourself from the bad parts. A company is a whole - there isn't the "good side" and the "bad side".
Ryan, that's an interesting point (that monopolies are always bad for consumers).
Let's tear into why:
Let's go back to the railroads of the 1860s. Why was the transcontinental railroad bad? Because they could charge anything they wanted. Why? Because there were no choices. Anything that had to be shipped in five days or less had to go over that rail line.
On the other hand, let's compare the monopoly of Microsoft. Most of the computers in the world aren't yet using our latest operating system. If you hate Windows, there are quite nice choices -- including one that's free. So, can Microsoft charge whatever it wants? No. We must provide something that's compelling to get them to upgrade and to even stay on our platforms cause it's pretty darn easy to format your disk and load Linux.
But, to your point. I think in the software world there's actually a great deal of value having everyone use the same stuff. Costs actually go down if you do. Training is cheaper. It's easier to replace machines if you have the same OS. It's easier and cheaper to develop systems if you have the same OS.
So, costs for the consumer actually go down in some very real ways if there's a single platform.
Does that hurt the consumer? Well, it can. Why? Because if there's only a single platform then the single platform vendor might not innovate as fast (or have as much reason to). But, what use is that? Microsoft only gets paid if you buy a new computer or upgrade your existing software. Yet more than half of the computers out there haven't been upgraded yet! So much for monopoly power.
And, we've seen -- in less than a decade -- Linux emerge as a very strong and capable competitor.
Jeremy: hmmm, well, I can see how intelligent people could come to that belief.
Let's look at Silicon Valley. Let's take it out of Microsoft land for a moment.
What's going on there? Tons of programming jobs are being shipped over to India and China. Why? Because those places can develop software cheaper than we can in the United States. Why is that? Well, they don't pay for software. Ever been to China? I have. They steal software (not just ours, either). On every street corner you can buy every Sun Microsystems, every Microsoft, and every Adobe product for $1 a copy (or less -- I saw some CDs that'd come with all sorts of stuff on one CD).
Is it American to work for free? To have your work stolen on international markets? I don't think so. So, I can see how some people would get that mentality.
It's not OSS that we care about. It's the movement that believes that software should be free. That movement makes it hard to realize any ROI from investing in software businesses. Guess what happens then? Wallstreet (er, mom and dad) stop investing in you. The tap gets turned off. Americans lose jobs. This isn't a Microsoft thing. It's an industry thing and I was saying such before I even thought of working at Microsoft.
Go and visit Silicon Valley today. There are huge industrial parks that are abandoned there right now. Is that good for America?
Sorry - I'm not an American. Unfortunately, your remarks come off as sounding a little selfish:
"Is it American to work for free?"
Well, is it "American" to volunteer my time at the local Men's shelter? What about if I donate my $30 billion to charity? Is that American? Or should I be charging the shelter for my time? Perhaps not.
I don't buy your argument that Indian/Chinese/Russian programmers are cheaper because they aren't paying for software. More likely it's because the cost of living is lower "over there" than it is in North America. It's an unforuntate consequence of the capitalism that you mention here:
"By the way, this is a capitalist system we're working on here."
Lower-priced software developers get the job.
I don't believe your point about job losses to other countries can dispute the fact that Microsoft leadership is clearly out to destroy others through Jeremy Allison's:
"Concrete, documented examples of extreme corporate malfeasance."
>Unfortunately, your remarks come
>off as sounding a little selfish:
Humans are usually self-interested. When they say they are not, they usually are lying. But, it's important to control your self interest. It's what leads to wars.
Well, you point out why I don't generally get into the "what is American" debate cause there really is no such thing as American anymore. In Silicon Valley more than 60 cultures are represented within a 60 mile radius. My wife, for instance, was born in Iran. Is that American? Who knows!
Well, lower cost of living is one thing. But, also the belief that software and entertainment should be free (they also steal our movies there). Clearly a business that doesn't pay for software can undercut one that does.
>I don't believe your point about
>job losses to other countries can
>dispute the fact that Microsoft
>leadership is clearly out to
>destroy others through Jeremy
>Allison's:
Hmmm. You do know that Jeremy works for several of our competitors, right? His view of our actions might be a little different than what ours is. Sorta like how the view of an Iraqi soldier might be different from that of an American or British one.
Just as a curiousity, where do you get your idea that software companies in the east steal software? In my personal experience with a large company outsourcing to India, the outsourced work was using fully-licensed Microsoft software. Indian out-sourcing firms can't hope to do business with large corporations if they haven't got their software in line.
Just because a large percentage of the ordinary citizens of these countries don't purchase software doesn't mean that the companies won't.
I guess we'll see what the EU thinks of Microsoft, given it's large volume of evidence that it'll need to sort through.
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article...0824/
40824.html
Jeremy: I have Indian friends back in Silicon Valley who tell me stories. Plus, we've had some internal discussions here too of what really goes on in industry there.
In China I witnessed it with my own eyes as I visited different companies.
Hey, not saying we're always good. Heck, I'm occassionally evil.
A Microsoft employee just wrote to disagree with me about my statement that we're just like every other company and he made a good enough point I wanted to put it here:
"Nope. Most companies *are* composed of folks doing what their boss tells them, which rolls all the way from the top. MS is different is that implementation of overall goals are run in a very individual-centric, grass-roots way. That makes MS *very* different from most companies in my experience (and I've worked and consulted at more than my share)."
An interesting point just popped into my head. I am not sure if it is relevant. I will never outsource to a nation that does not breed freedom. Period.
There are 2 aspects to software (possibly 3): art & engineering. My argument relates to the former.
Take at what it is worth.
...and another thing. I am not trying to stir debate, but can someone give me a link to a totally outsourced project. I would like to look at it.
No. 1 - I don't think you're really in a position to slam Cringely, who for many years has delivered genuinely insightful and irreverent commentary on the bloated egos and juvenile bluster of the computer industry without being a religious zealot or a fawning commercial hack. Yes, most of the time he's been critical of Microsoft, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about just because he doesn't work there, or even that he's wrong. He's been in the personal computer industry since its inception, and far longer than you, give him some credit.
No. 2- The point about trash talking is well made. I think a big part of what makes Microsoft so deeply offensive to so many people isn't just its questionable business practices, but rather its tendency to let Bill, Steve, and its more brainwashed zealot employees mouth off to the press all the time in a completely juvenile manner. It isn't Professional Wrestling, try a little civility sometime. Grow up. You look like jerks.
How do you know they are brainwashed? How do you know it is not the case that Microsoft is the only company to foster such a culture? Don't you wish you had employees like that? No need for an answer.
>no use for a name: why the need to be annonymous here? You related to Cringley or something? Got something to hide?
>its more brainwashed zealot employees mouth off to the press all the time in a completely juvenile manner.
Heh. Like that never happens on weblogs, does it?
Oh, and never in Silicon Valley. NEVER!
Nah, Silicon Valley executives would never run their mouths off to a journalist, would they?
No, of course not. Only Microsoft execs get to do that.
Interesting, other friends who actually live in India are reading this thread now and say the situation has gotten far better recently -- particularly inside companies. He admits, though, that lots of copied software is still available on the street.
OSS doesn't mean free. Look at IBM and RedHat - selling services off of a royalty free OS. Open doesn't mean no money.
Robert:" Tons of programming jobs are being shipped over to India and China. Why? Because those places can develop software cheaper than we can in the United States. "
Uh isn't MS funding like millions into India for research and development of software?
Seems like MS should be funding that here based on your agument.
Also, one single platform breeds viri and arianism. We need the cross culture. Darwinism. Don't care if MS has 99%, as long as they don't close the doors on sharing info between the others. It is my data, my info, and whatever platform I am on, whatever software I use, I should be able to get to my data everywhere.
MS's monopoly is in the IT departments. Most IT seem to believe that if it isn't MS it isn't good. By that I don't mean just OS, but everything from HTML editors to MP3 players. We had to fight like hell to get Dreamweaver over FrontPage (back at version 1.0). The monopoly isn't OS in my eyes, but the lock out of 3rd party software on the platform by short sighted IT that think if it isn't MS it will unstable the system, bring down the network, or bring forth armageddon. MS could do a lot to just help point out that there are certified 3rd party tools (Macromedia, Adobe, etc....)
Oh, and it is the CEO's job to slam and lip off. That is what the media and the share holders want. Like the quarterback's pep talk. Like Bill Gates would ever get up and say "Well Sun is doing great with ___" or "That Apple OS X is amazing, we'd better get in gear and..."
No, they are all going to push their stuff and sluff off others. If they don't they send shock waves of FUD.
Who listens to those clods anyway. None of them have to wait in line to get their emissions tested or live in the real world anyway.
I don't think I'm exaggerating. Every time I try to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, they still act like the same old bratty little children. There's no point in attempting to be polite to a company that has such little respect for its colleagues and customers. Most recently with David Fester's comments on Apple's Itunes, or the comment about AOl "interoperating with a weak stepsister," referring to open source as "communist" and "unamerican" and the many other pans equally juvenile and insulting. You just don't get it do you? Every time I have to hear stuff like this, it makes me cringe, and if anybody had any sense of diplomacy or accountability at Microsoft they would learn to shut their mouths. And no, it just isn't true that other people (with the exceptions of Larry Ellisson and maybe Scott Mcnealy) mouth off to the press the way Microsoft does, and certainly not a company that is in its market position, and is always going to be under scrutiny for possible antitrust violations.
You said yourself you were going to listen to criticism, go ahead and hate Microsoft. Well here it is. You work for Microsoft, and unless you've completely gotten religion, it really shouldn't be news to you that lots of people aren't happy with your company. You can just blithely dismiss it in the usual MS way, but that's not listening to criticism.
And remember, Cringely has been in the industry since he helped unload computers out of the van at the Homebrew Computer Club. I think he does know a thing or two about Microsoft and the industry, and the fact that he doesn't get a paycheck from there doesn't invalidate his observations in any way.
>it really shouldn't be news to you
>that lots of people aren't happy
>with your company.
Oh, I know that very well. Remember, I've railed against Microsoft in the past myself.
>You just don't get it do you?
Oh, I get it. Now the trick is to get everyone else to get it.
>Uh isn't MS funding like millions
>into India for research and
>development of software?
>Seems like MS should be funding
>that here based on your agument.
Oh, no, I don't agree with that. Those countries do buy some software. That money should be invested in software specifically for their citizens. Not to mention, there are some darn smart developers in both India and China (don't believe that there isn't anything interesting being developed there).
I met one guy from China who is developing some really cool face recognition software at Microsoft's offices there.
>Who listens to those clods anyway.
Actually a lot of people listen to the CEOs.
Guy with no name: there are a lot of people who mouth off. It's just the press doesn't pay much attention to them most of the time. Look at me. Since joining Microsoft I've all of a sudden had my traffic go up more than 10 times as well as I've gotten quoted in many press articles.
>Cringely has been in the industry
>since he helped unload computers
>out of the van at the Homebrew
>Computer Club.
I'm so happy for him. I was in Silicon Valley's first computer club and got a tour of APple computer when they were one small building too. Plus, Steve Wozniak gave me $40,000 worth of Macs for my journalism department at West Valley Community College.
That doesn't mean all that much, though. I don't think that being in Silicon Valley working at Apple back then really makes you much more of an expert on Microsoft than anyone else who was following the industry back then.
As an IT professional, I take exception to the statement that IT departments lock companies into MS products.
As an IT Manager, it's my job to get best of breed software and systems that 1) fit the task at hand, 2) provide value and 3) are easy to maintain, administer, monitor and manage.
Sometimes Microsoft products fit the bill (there is no other substitute for Exchange in my mind). Sometimes they don't. Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Acrobat and Indesign are some good examples. For a law firm, a legal based document management system would be another one. Sharepoint is too expensive and does not give the needed benefit for most law firms, as you need to buy it and add on 3rd party software for it to be useful to law firms.
The other thing that people aren't speaking to, is that perhaps in the OS sector a monopoly is the natural balance state for things. That to try to force the market into diversity is an unnatural act.
Nothing in this world is perfect. Not Microsoft, not Linux, not Honda, not Snap-On, not even Breyers Vanilla Ice Cream.
Use the right tool for the job and implement it properly. Sometimes this will be a Microsoft product. Sometimes not. But as an IT manager, I have to use objectivity and long term planning in what to choose and for many things, the best tool happens to be Microsoft.
Now Cringely has posted part 2 of his MSFT commentary, wherein he opines that MSFT 2.0 will be a media/DRM company, trafficking in pop culture.
In reply I sent the following e-mail:
---
Subject: MSFT 2.0 will sell 'opportunity maps' to 'information workers'
I should know. Not long ago my business plan for a provider of lifelong learning and career services -- which assigns primacy to developing
opportunity maps -- was circulated internally at MSFT. Soon after, I
received the following e-mail from Randy Hinrichs, the manager of
Microsoft Research's Learning Sciences and Technology Group:
"Frank, you are a good man. Have you thought about joining this team? Your
only alternative, of course, is venture capital. But their usual models require getting rid of the 'originator' within the first eighteen months. With Netscape it took a little longer, but you get the idea."
This biz model is also easy for MSFT to understand -- MSFT already uses
opportunity maps to inform their own decision-making -- and feel good
about, as they can leverage the MS Office user base...
More details upon request...
---
Thoughts?
To clarify: my hypothesis is that MSFT will get in the business of originating opportunity maps for i-workers, because absent this kind of 'must have' content being accessible only through MSFT DRM, ContentCos will just go the Liberty Alliance route for DRM...
RObert:"Oh, no, I don't agree with that. Those countries do buy some software. That money should be invested in software specifically for their citizens. Not to mention, there are some darn smart developers in both India and China (don't believe that there isn't anything interesting being developed there)."
Never said there wasn't talent. Your argument was about companies sending jobs abroad to India and China.
The last 3 killer apps I have gotten have come from programmers in Germany.
It is a worldwide economy.
There isn't an MS call center in India that I get when I call for support?
Robert..
You didn't really compare Jeremy to an Iraqi soldier did you? Surely you could have come up with a better analogy than that.
> You didn't really compare Jeremy to an Iraqi soldier did you? Surely you could have come up with a better analogy than that.
Perhaps he was referring to Microsoft as the Iraqi soldiers and to me as an American. 
Scoble the Iraqi Information Minister!
Huh? I was just trying to show how two different sides might have different points of view.
It's interesting to see this discussing of Microsoft only acting in the best interest of it' shareholders and then contrasting it with this discussion over on the MSN stock boards.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/comm...fMessage%
3D8517
By making an analogy to a country that your country is currently at war with/occupying, it comes across that you are saying that one side is clearly "right" and the other side is "wrong".
Might want to try an analogy that sounds less like an ad hominem:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/f...ad-
hominem.html
"But, you'd never believe me anyway. It's too hard to put your mind around an idea that a corporation is made up of people -- all acting on their own behalf -- and that it isn't a single entity."
Scoble- I don't think it's what you intended, but this sounds very condescending to me...
I look at a company like a MSFT as a somewhat chaotic entity. Think in terms of emergent behavior. I've read and heard that MSFT acts in a very paranoid fashion. That's probably not necesarily a bad thing. I'm bothered by the zero-sum game attitude that MSFT shows in its business decisions. The "you don't win until only token challengers remain" attitude may be good for MSFT, but I believe it's bad for the industry.
Ahhh... I feel better now
Ah, now I know where those exec offices are. You wouldn't happen to know where shipments of Mac G5's are received, would you? :-p
Alex: "As an IT professional, I take exception to the statement that IT departments lock companies into MS products."
The past 3 companies I have worked for, the management and the IT managers have picked the software we use. Not the developers. That is vendor lock-in.
I don't speak of exchange or office, or pet apps, I am talking up to date state of the tech dev tools that get shunned because they aren't MS or come in the MS Package (MSDN, Corp licensing, etc..)
Robert Scoble wrote :
"On the other hand, let's compare the monopoly of Microsoft. Most of the computers in the world aren't yet using our latest operating system. If you hate Windows, there are quite nice choices -- including one that's free. So, can Microsoft charge whatever it wants? No. We must provide
something that's compelling to get them to upgrade and to even stay on our platforms cause it's pretty darn easy to format your disk and load Linux."
Actually, that's not true. The truth behind that statement is the reason you're being investegated by the EU. The problem is "interoperability". You don't allow it, you don't provide it, you won't support it. The "interconnected web of Microsoft systems" is why you can't just load linux on a system and have it work well with Microsoft clients or servers.
I can't talk about the specifics of the hearings, but one thing that suprised me there was actually hearing one of your execs talking about RPC interfaces between client and server as "internal interfaces".
This designing client and server as one product in order to leverage a client monopoly into the server. It's illegal and if you don't stop doing it I think bad things will happen to you via industry regulation.
Jeremy.
Robert Scoble wrote :
"It's not OSS that we care about. It's the movement that believes that software should be free."
Remember, it's free as in freedom, not free as in price. Look at the latest RedHat price agreements if you don't believe me. OSS doesn't mean free cost. It means freedom for users. The freedom to really chose. That, I think, is what really scares you.
Jeremy.
Robert you are so full of bullshit, it's a waste of time and energy to read you blog. I wonder if you really believe in what you write. To what extent are you willing to go to justify microsoft behavior and lie to promote microsoft garbage. Do you think that your justifications are logical and believable?
I'm just happy that my URL posting made every other post scroll all to hell and back on this thread.
It's the little things that count.
Wow, these comments are pretty brutal stuff and I love a good polemical argument.
We all need to generalise to get by in the world (eg so that we know that a most doors works in much the same way; or that when you see a lawyer you should prepare to get screwed)... but sometimes it pays not to.
If you're saying the reality of Microsoft is more complex, chaotic and less monolithic than its ardent critics suggest, I totally buy that. The fact that loads of MS people are blogging is at least a clue - to even the zealous Gates-haters - that this isn't quite the evil empire they want to make out.
Well Thad, I would say that your IT Manager or CIO is doing your company a grave injustice by not 1) listening to the people who will actually use the software and 2) not researching to find the best of breed product that meets your companies needs.
Having said that, I will say that all things being equal, I would choose the MS product over something else simply because I know that MS isn't going anywhere for pretty much as long as there's a USA. However, things are almost never equal.
John, exactly. It's so much easier to just paint Microsoft with the "evil brush" and not look at things with a more objective eye.
Heh... it's easy to paint them with that brush when they keep acting like they do.
Tyler: well, if you paint with the "Microsoft is evil" brush, then how can you explain that in the past month more than 50% of Microsoft's employees donated more than $30 million to charity? And Microsoft threw in another $30 million to match that? Yeah, that's evil too.
Oh, and not to mention: Outlook 2003 has very cool search folders. Nah, those are evil too.
Oh, and OneNote is a new app that is very cool. Evil!
We've just released some new Xbox games. Evil!
And on and on. Is everything this company does evil?
All things being equal, I would choose the open-source product over something else simply because I know that the software isn't going away for pretty much as long as there's an Internet or an equivalent. However, things are almost never equal.
Michael, good point. In fact, we're slowly opening up our source too. Not for that reason, but so that ISVs and governments can see that we have nothing to hide. Most of our customers aren't worried about us going away anytime soon, so that advantage really doesn't matter for us. For smaller ISVs, though, like Abderaware that is indeed a big issue. Hey, they have open source programs and they build stuff for Windows! Hmmm.
"so that ISVs and governments can see that we have nothing to hide"
That's the Microsoft party line. But of course it's meaningless for governments in terms of reassurance.
Unless you ship governments full source code and allow them to build their own version of Windows from it and distribute it to their populace (you know, like Linux then there is *NO* reassurance that the bits they get pre-loaded from the OEM's have anything but a vague relationship to the nice safe source code you showed them.
I think that's why governments with an antagonistic relationship to the US (and let's face it that's just about all of them except the UK will have no choice but to adopt Linux interanly. It's the only secure choice they can *know* hasn't been tampered by the US.
Jeremy.
Jeremy: interesting point. But, I have yet to meet a government who really understands software development.
Ahem. I have yet to meet a government. Period.
There are *people* in government (though few, if any, elected officials) who do understand software development.
Oh, and BTW, [Shared|Visible]-Source != Open-Source.
More explicitly, although Microsoft might not go away, support for various microsoft products does.
Open-Source is also important when I consider an ISVs offering, as it is an insurance policy protecting against (among other eventualities) Microsoft buying the ISV and killing the product (I have been burned in exactly this way, incidentally).
Open-Source means never having to say "Damn, I'm screwed".
"But, I have yet to meet a government who really understands software development."
Well don't worry Robert, whenever I get to meet with government officials I make sure I stress this point to them. Also to journalists. So with a bit of luch we'll be able to make them realise how irrelevent "shared source" programs are for them, and they need to adopt the "real thing" (Open Source/Free Software .
Jeremy.
Robert - regarding donations and xbox.
Are the donations actually cash, or are they the standard microsoft licensing donations? Giving away licenses to your software doesn't count IMO. If it's cash or blankets or diapers and babyfood and whatnot, good on you, but I'd expect that from a company that large and with that many billions in the bank. My company has ~100 people working here and we contribute to basics for babies (vancouver charity) as well, big deal.
Also, hasn't outlook had some harsh critics lately? Search folders are nifty (anything like evolution's virtual folders?), but if the rest of the app sucks.....
Andrew Leonard has written in Salon about Bill Gate's charitable activities. None of these activities make Microsoft itself into a more noble, or less heinous and unethical company, but nevertheless, we do have to be grateful for what we get, regardless of the source.
I personally think Microsoft's employees engagement in volunteer work and charitable activities as sort of the positive flip side of the massive RDF and denial required to work for the Mafia of the computer industry. Sort of an attempt to throw off some of the bad kharma that comes from working for the Man.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/fe...s/
index_np.html
Salon, by the way, is way cooler than Slate.
Our employees donated $30 million in cash.
Ming Wu: hey, remember, Silicon Valley was founded with money from a monopoly. Stanford University started Silicon Valley. It directly influenced the beginning of HP, Apple, Yahoo, Cisco, Excite, and others.
Guess who Leland Stanford was? He was a VP on the Central Pacific Railroad. He was one of the 'robber barons' who had a REAL monopoly. Not a wishy washy one like Microsoft has. (Central Pacific had NO competitors and could truly behave in a monopolistic way).
Finally figured this out - my http://www.phind.net/ecommerce/
e...statistics.html
Finally figured this out - my http://www.thispot.com/marketing...eting-
jobs.html
Commenting by HaloScan
