Linux Waddles from Obscurity to the Big Time

USA Today ^ | August 5, 2002 | Byron Acohido

[ShadowAce]

SEATTLE -- When investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein began making the switch to the Linux computer operating system in 1999, it did so to save money.

The Germany-based bank sought a less-costly way to calculate risks associated with its portfolio of investments. So it replaced 32 computer servers, based on the time-tested Unix operating systems, at an average cost of $50,000 each, with 40 Linux servers, at $3,000 a pop.

[RISU]

You could never pay me enough money to want to look, act, speak, and think like that.

It's his "life", and he can have it.

[Bush2000]

You could never pay me enough money to want to look, act, speak, and think like that. It's his "life", and he can have it.

Whether or not you want to be Gates is irrelevant to the issue of whether he "blew it". The fact of the matter is that he won.

[RISU]

Won what?
Keep posted. You'll see the misery eventually.
MS is buried up to its ass in deceit, worthless option pay - off the books, etc.
When his "win" is over in the eyars ahead it will look like anyone else's "major catastrophe".
Basically, he was first on the scene with an "operating asytem" for the masses, and took full advantage of the fact that whoever controls the Master Boot Record controls the machine, and what it can and cannot do.
Look for major recriminations in the years ahead. You couldn't "give me" his "position" in the market.
The company is going to become "toast".
As for you, better rethink what you consider to be "success". Be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

[Bush2000]

Won what?

MS is the #1 company in the world, despite years of badgering by the Clinton Administration. They've escaped every trap thrown at them.

Keep posted. You'll see the misery eventually. MS is buried up to its ass in deceit, worthless option pay - off the books, etc. When his "win" is over in the eyars ahead it will look like anyone else's "major catastrophe".

If you are aware of stuff that's off the books, then provide some evidence; otherwise, state that it's your own opinion. Most people at Microsoft don't work there for the money. They work there because the work is challenging and intellectually rewarding, and also because Seattle is a great place to raise a family.

Basically, he was first on the scene with an "operating asytem" for the masses, and took full advantage of the fact that whoever controls the Master Boot Record controls the machine, and what it can and cannot do.

That's right. Being there first has some advantages. Anybody who thinks that another company (ie. Sun, Oracle, AOL, IBM) would have done differently is kidding himself. Your criticism could apply equally to any company in a leading product market position.

Look for major recriminations in the years ahead. You couldn't "give me" his "position" in the market. The company is going to become "toast". As for you, better rethink what you consider to be "success". Be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

Of course there will be trials, new competitors, and changes in focus for MS. That's the nature of the technology business. And MS could certainly end up as "toast", as you put it. But I doubt that that will happen. Regardless of where it has been and where it is now, it's sitting on top of $50B worth of cash which grows at nearly $8B per year. With resources like those, it could shutter all of its buildings for a couple years and continue to support its current obligations. But that's not going to happen: MS is going to use its cash to leverage itself into other markets through acquisition. Like GE, it may end up getting into businesses which have nothing to do with software. There's simply no credible scenario that has this company going under within the next 10 years. You're simply going to have to face facts.

[RISU]

some evidence

MS just about invented stock options in lieu of pay. But when you don't expense them, then your books do not reflect the true cost of doing business. That misleads investors into overpaying for the stock. MS is a "bubble" firm. It is going to the dust heap. No amount of cash to "burn" on weird "good ideas" is going to save you when you don't listen to what your customers want. (Privacy, security, and a trustworthy supplier.)

any company in a leading product market position.

There is an old mantra I sort of subscribe to: "A man's character is his fate". The so-called "operating system" was a "lie". It was never just permitting the hardware to function together. It was an application environment, and was used to preclude competition by diminishing or negating "functionality" of unwanted applications. The best of the 3rd party aps that showed up on the radar screen were just "taken" by writing a "functional spec" (a process the softies called "virginizing", and then programming the ap into the next release for "free". (Which wipes out the creator)

You're simply going to have to face facts.

For me the facts are simple. I do not trust anything MS does, says, or sells. There is still a whole bunch of stuff going on in the "background" over the net, and I stopped the "long fotrced march to upgrade" with W98. I am headed "out" of the MS wotrld, and I would guess a lot of others are as well. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

Be well, my "Seattle" based freind.

[eno_]

When was the last time Google was unavailable when you wanted it?

[eno_]

"There's simply no credible scenario that has this company going under within the next 10 years."

That's true, but Data General still exists, too.

[bvw]

Hey, you certainly can make extremely stable unix systems, when you set your mind and body to it. I'm just speaking to some experiences in mixed shops. It's no knock to unix at all.

The mature but diminishing crowd that does mainframes however is more savvy as how to keep out the kind of fast-paced changes or radical expectations that in combination with widespread belief that unix programming talent is as common as dirt causes systems to be immaturely spec'd, designed and built and consequent problems.

It has nothing to do with the software, its all in the sociology.

[Bush2000]

MS just about invented stock options in lieu of pay. But when you don't expense them, then your books do not reflect the true cost of doing business. That misleads investors into overpaying for the stock. MS is a "bubble" firm.

You're buying into the same BS being fed to Americans by Democratic pollsters. Expensing options is a red herring, and I'll tell you why. There is no way to predict the future cost of options at the time they're granted; therefore, there's no way for investors to estimate future obligations. By the same token, options don't become expenses until the stock rises above the water mark. As it stands, the vast majority of Microsoft's previous paper obligations are no longer obligations since the stock will never rise above that level. Honestly, you've bought into campaign year rhetoric meant to drive a wedge issue between Democrats from Republicans.

It is going to the dust heap. No amount of cash to "burn" on weird "good ideas" is going to save you when you don't listen to what your customers want. (Privacy, security, and a trustworthy supplier.)

MS spent $100M recently to improve the privacy and security of its products. They are listening. You're just not paying attention.

There is an old mantra I sort of subscribe to: "A man's character is his fate". The so-called "operating system" was a "lie". It was never just permitting the hardware to function together. It was an application environment, and was used to preclude competition by diminishing or negating "functionality" of unwanted applications. The best of the 3rd party aps that showed up on the radar screen were just "taken" by writing a "functional spec" (a process the softies called "virginizing", and then programming the ap into the next release for "free". (Which wipes out the creator)

Companies routinely borrow ideas from one another. Look at any industry and you will see innovation being tapped by competitors. If you believe this practice is peculiar to Microsoft, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. As for apps being given away for free, the only one that I'm aware of is IE. And Netscape set the price at zero. The dug their own grave.

I do not trust anything MS does, says, or sells.

This is America. You have the right to be wrong.

[Bush2000]

That's true, but Data General still exists, too.

Data General doesn't have $50B of cash in the bank now, does it? ;-)

[CaptBlack]

Linux should go after the Game Market...then they'll be in firm competition with Micro$oft.

Why the "$"? Do people not make money with Linux?

[RISU]

I really shouldn't go on with you except you are pretty smart, and I appreciate that.

My "bitch" with MS is that they wasted four or five years of my life before I uncoverred how to wipe out the hidden disk partition they installed to "control" the system, and figured out how to "neuter" the "phone home" gizmos like ping.exe, pingnam.bat, pingnum.bat,tshoot.*, and so on.

If I had realized they wanted to monitor "inside" my machine, I would never have bought the first GUI version from them.(3.1)

Now I am stuck with a million applications that run under MS and hate the OS!

Even though I made a pretty good effort to block them from any further "access" to my PC, I still get probes that attemtpt to write static allocated routines on my disk surface, and change the partition table to try and hide a 2 million byte partition they can create if you let them do it.

They have a simple business philosophy: "Your PC is our PC."

I am "done" with MS.

As far as your point re: "options", I must fundamentally disagree. If they have any value to the employee who recieves them, then they have value, and constitute an expense of the company.

I'll let the accountants sort the details.

[ez2muz]

"...I'm surprised that there is no good -- as far as I know -- Power Point substitute"

Although it has been awhile, I've used FrameMaker and found it to be as good, overall, as PowerPoint. Both do some things better than the other...

[eno_]

Open Office is ppt compatible, and really very nice. I would not miss powerpoint. I use Office XP at work, but all my home machines have Open Office, and I have never had a problem editing docs from work.

[eno_]

It's also in the economics. Google would not be possible without cheap powerful commodity boxen and free software. If Google were built on Win2k servers, their license burden would be in the tens of millions per year.

$99 for a Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade is good value. Thousands for a Windows server license is ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands for an Oracle license are ridiculous when SAP-DB is free. Mainframes are even more ridiculous. Except for applications that were developed in the age of mainframes and that are part of IT budgets somewhere north of $50M/year, mainframes are uneconomical.

[bvw]

Thanks, I'll have to try it.

[Bush2000]

I really shouldn't go on with you except you are pretty smart, and I appreciate that.

Likewise.

My "bitch" with MS is that they wasted four or five years of my life before I uncoverred how to wipe out the hidden disk partition they installed to "control" the system, and figured out how to "neuter" the "phone home" gizmos like ping.exe, pingnam.bat, pingnum.bat,tshoot.*, and so on.

I don't see how you can blame MS for preventing you from implementing knowledge that you didn't have.

If I had realized they wanted to monitor "inside" my machine, I would never have bought the first GUI version from them.(3.1)

I understand your reservation; however, I don't see any egregious examples where your trust is being totally abused.

Now I am stuck with a million applications that run under MS and hate the OS!

Try Linux. Or Mac OSX. They are good alternatives. There's no reason to get angry.

Even though I made a pretty good effort to block them from any further "access" to my PC, I still get probes that attemtpt to write static allocated routines on my disk surface, and change the partition table to try and hide a 2 million byte partition they can create if you let them do it. They have a simple business philosophy: "Your PC is our PC."

It's an operating system. It isn't news that an OS takes over disk partitions and writes information. Linux does the same.

I am "done" with MS.

It's good to have choices, wouldn't you agree?

As far as your point re: "options", I must fundamentally disagree. If they have any value to the employee who recieves them, then they have value, and constitute an expense of the company. I'll let the accountants sort the details.

Yes, they have value; however, my point is that, at the point of awarding those options, investors have no possible way of assessing their value. Because to do so would require a crystal ball. They could have a value of zero or $1M. You don't know. The only way to expense options is after the fact -- and that's too late for investors.

[Bush2000]

One possible way for the Congress to deal with this issue is to require companies to report how many options they have outstanding and at what share price. For example, they could require companies to disclose that they have 200,000 shares obligated at an option price of, say, $85. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree. As I've said previously, most of MS's options are underwater. That means that employees will never see any profit from them and, therefore, there will never be any expense to investors.

Another thing that I wouldn't mind seeing done is to prevent CEOs and higher management insiders from exercising stock options until at least 120 days (or longer) after they have left a particular company. That would prevent many of the fraudulent shenanigans that we are seeing.

The real game here is that Democrats want to get Republicans on record for opposing expensing stock options; in that way, they can paint Republicans as the "Party of the Rich". As a result, I would caution you to beware of who you side with on this debate.

[pointsal]

good post, ping the ding in Redman

[RISU]

I do appreciate your measured and sensible retorts.

Your points have been well taken.

I believe that a recognition of "current liability" associated with the potential excercise of options considering the difference of current price to strike price would be a good approach.

Thank you indeed for the stimulating conversation.

One last item, please. I never had any real cause to believe that MS would abuse my trust by using their "background capabilties". However, I do not like it that they created that "capability", and didn't tell me about it. (It resulted in "fear" the first time it became apparent, because I thought it was some sort of attack by an unknown third party. (Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, you know!)

If you would be interested in the story you can find it at:

http://www.geocities.com/RISUQDM/