Steve Ballmer says: Linux is a cancer
Steve would think that. I wonder if he has ever read the GPL. Only code which was originally GPLed needs to be released under the GPL license. I am sure Steve does not want to take credit or profit from others hard work.
I see Linux and GNU stuff as a vacination against the plague know as Microsoft.
Apparently Mr. Ballmer is a tad confused about which is the REAL cancer: GNU or Microsoft. You pay for Windows XP forever, and they limit you to two clean installs?!
Microsoft is running scared. It's very plain to see that Microsoft knows its days on top are numbered.
First, Microsoft complains about not being paid for ITSwork. Now it complains about Microsoft not being paid for SOMEBODY ELSE'S work.
Microsoft likes it in the old days when computer manufacturers had to pay a royality to Microsoft for all computers CAPABLE of running Windows!
I can understand some legitimate concerns about the financial health of for-profit software companies in a world where anyone may soon be able to download and use an equally viable alternative for free.
But it seems more like Mr. Ballmer is just trying to protect "business as usual" at Microsoft, and I agree that they are running scared in light of the rising popularity of Linux. In a world where consumers have a choice the software that costs money had better be vastly superior quality and provide every feature expected by the consumer.
I'm quite sure that Mr. Ballmer is not a blundering idiot makeing aimless stabbs at Linux, but is quite aware of what the GPL actually says and is well advised by his legal staff. Mr. Ballmer's attacks are probably well planned and Microsoft is counting on the fact that 99% of the world doesn't even have the slightest idea of what "GPL" even stands for.
Stevie baby must have done a good job reading his Joseph Goebbels -- the big lie, repeated often enough, will be perceived as the truth (he hopes).
I hate to admit I use a Micro$ux product (just the OS, not anything else). However, I'm also one of those who likes to reformat his HDD and upgrade constantly. If I'm limited to "2 clean installs", I won't be installing Windoze XP. Let Micro$ux do their "2 clean installs" limit. They'll go the way of IBM when they tried to restrict MCA by requiring back licensing of ISA. This is an incredibly stupid business decision. btw, Windoze 95/98 still work just fine for me. I'm moving to Linux for anything new.
Users of the world unite! You've nothing to lose but the GPF blue screen of death!
Cancer? Does he mean something that starts out in one place, such as an Operating System, then takes over the applications market, then spreads to Internet browsers, then to backoffice apps, then TV and video games? It's clear that if any company can be called cancerous, it's Microsoft.
While I conceed that MS is a definitely a strong force within the market, and that they do have a right to integrate whatever code/application/product into the base operating system. However, trying to dismiss the nearest competition within the desktop x86 as a "cancerous growth" is quite laughable. Considering Gates and Balmer originally offered IBM a product that they didn't even initially own should offer proof that MS has been the cancerous growth upon the IT market since the 80's.
The worst problem has been presented by CMonster. Loess long thinking about GPL, how many Win9x users out there actually know what Linux, BSD, QNX, or BeOS actually are? Until any of the above move forward with better marketing at both the consumer and OEM (especially here!) levels, then it is likely to remain this way.
Windows= a 32-bit OS that has trouble running
16-bit apps,can't handle 8-bit programs, and
doesn't give 2-bits about it's users.most of all doesn't want 1 bit of it's monopoly challenged.....Peace,love and Linux....
Oh, Geeze, Mr. Balmer! Look who's calling the kettle black! Every bit of work done at our engineering offices is touched by the unreliability of Windows & Windows-based software. I can't calculate the lost revenue this has cost us, but I'm certain that it's not offset by Window's oft-touted "ease of use."
Were these apps available for Linux (or DOS for that matter.) you'd better believe that we'd use them. We'd drop Windows in a heartbeat!
And, don't worry, Steve & Bill: they will be available. The more troublesome and overbearing the "MicroSoft Experience" becomes, the more developers and users will switch. Once users really start jumping on the GPL bandwagon, everyone still using MS products will feel left behind and out of style. You know how people hate that.
Sic Transit Gloria!
[This message has been edited by caddmannq (edited 06-08-2001).]
Microsoft arranges an interview in which they control the media, the medium and the message, and then they attack another product.
I'm reminded of what Willy Wobbledagger once said: "O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."
As others have said, until alternatives to Microsoft become full featured and finished enough to gain general acceptance, only the few in the know will know of that tyranny.
The problem with the actual interview is that it looks like an email one - someone has sent Ballmer a set of questions that he's answered.
When he replied it doesn't look like he (or his PA) proofed his answer well enough. He comes out implying something that he unfortunately doesn't mean - I'm sure he only meant to say that if you use any open source code in a piece of software then that software becomes open source, but that's not the way it came out.
Proof your emails a little better next time Mr. Ballmer!
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke