Ballmer on Innovation 745
prostoalex writes "Robert Scoble interviewed Steve Ballmer on the topics of blogging, innovation at Microsoft, Microsoft's work with developers and other things. Video is available in WMV format." From the interview: "Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so. I don't think they've done much interesting at all. What about Oracle? I don't think they've done much innovative at all. What about the open source guys? Ah, the business model is interesting but we haven't seen much in the way of technical innovation. People cite Google. Google has done some interesting stuff."
The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be all well and even true. But why does Mr. Ballmer remind me so much of glass houses, stones, pots, kettles and the color black?
free Puff Piece for Microsoft? Here? (Score:4, Insightful)
This interview doesn't shed much light on an already dark and rainy corporation. How could this be anything but intellectual masturbation on Microsoft's part when you have a Microsoft employee slow pitching to the biggest windbag at Microsoft? Especially when the two appear to be patting themselves on the back about the fact that Microsoft really does innovate. Aside from the fact Ballmer is amazingly general in his list of innovations, the interviewer asks questions about other companies and if those companies out-innovated Microsoft. Of course, the response is they didn't.
But the interviewer might have asked some more thoughtful questions in that line like:
Not sure why, but even on slashdot Microsoft manages to get some Puff Pieces.
(open the Troll and Flamebait mod floodgates)
Asking *MS* about innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:same old same old.... everybody is leader but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Developers Developers .. gasp .. developers! (Score:2, Insightful)
What a weird world that must be.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
> business model is interesting but we haven't
> seen much in the way of technical innovation."
You have to understand this about Microsoft:
1) They are __not__ a technology company trying
to sell their products. They are a __marketing__
driven company whose products __happen__ to be
technological products.
2) Microsoft doesn't lead. Because they are a
marketing company, they __watch__ marketing __trends__ to see which way the wind blows.
When they think they know which way the market is going, then they will
either:
a) Buy the start up if they can.
b) Make their own (inferior) version if they can't buy the competition.
You have to wrap your head around those 2 points
until you grok the implications.
What are some of the implications?
1) They don't understand the motivation behind
open source and more specifically, free (GPL) software. As a marketing firm trying to sell product where's the money to be made here?
Answer: None. If there is no money to be made
from selling product, then why would you
waste time on it? (You have __got__ to see this
in market droid mode. This question doesn't make sense to ask from a technology point
of view, but Microsoft doesn't live in technology mode, they just visit and harvest from the technology world.)
2. You can't buy out open source software. You
can buy out a start up company or an individual
(like the creator of Gentoo), but that doesn't
stop the competition from using and improving
the software nevertheless.
You can't rip off the software either, in particular, you can't rip off GPL software
and be a leech about it.
So, from a __marketing__ point of view,
there is no "interesting" or "innovative"
software in the open source world, since
like MC Hammer sang it, they "can't touch this!".
I would have said in the past that Ballmer
is just an outright liar, but if you read
the above and grok it, you can see that
to use another a cliche, Baller "just doesn't get it."
--Johnny
He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe it can work in every situation, but the idea is good.
The most damning thing about Linux (for example) is that it has zero innovation. I want to see something new for the desktop, not rehashed ideas that Apple or Microsoft or Unix implemented years earlier.
I don't believe Linux is innovative, and I see that pervading the entire open source movement.
Look at Open Office. Great idea, lousy implementation. Apart from the cost, what benefit does it have over Microsoft Office? There's nothing new in it, nothing innovative.
I'd even go so far as to say that the amount of sameness cripples it. Apple did more with Pages than the Open Office has with its word 'wannabe', and it shows. They're trying something new, something innovative.
Ballmer is right when he says open source software is not innovative. I disagree with the man on almost everything he says and is, but he's right in that.
And goddamn it, I wish he weren't
No room for anyone but us (Score:5, Insightful)
All these other companies make products that other people use to be innovative. There relly isn't a lot of innovative room in relational databases for Oracle. They make databases, and very good databases and very popular databases, and they make a lot of money doing just that. THEIR CUSTOMERS are the ones who put those databases to good use.
IBM make a lot of stuff. Most of it is pretty good stuff, and they make a lot of money selling that stuff. It is IBM's CUSTOMERS who make good use of it.
"The open source guys..." Well, they make a lot of stuff too. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO USE OPEN SOURCE software who put it to good use and who are innovative. Open source allows people a little more room to be innovative. They can aquire it at a lower cost. They can alter it to better meet their specific requirements...
Steve Ballmer believes that computers are a platform for software companies to restrict and dictate what happens there. In that model, customers do not decide what computers do, but software vendors. That's why Microsoft feels the need to compete in every single little corner of the software industry. For Microsoft to (almost literally) control the world, they have to be the sole supplier of software to everyone.
"The open source guys" have a different view.
It's a bit like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
You say this because you expect innovation from Linux. However, the truth is, Linux started out as a brilliant student's pet project, and is now a commodity Unix kernel clone. Linux won't bring much innovation, as its architecture is deeply conventional.
The main innovation with Linux can be found in the social networking of F/OSS that Stallman started, and that Linus Torvalds and friends popularized. It demonstrated that decentralized, free software development was viable.
There are no truly groundbreaking innovation in the OS field. Yes I know about Hurd and BeOS and whatnot, but they are just variations of the same themes. What I'm waiting for is a true massively parallel OS, OSes with totally virtualized memories (disk and RAM and rom etc), OS/hardware combos that are designed to be switched on and off at will with next to no "reboot" time, etc...
Oh come on! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it's the microsoft groupies who've been saying for years that anything MS do is the de-facto standard. You can't complain if we occasionally try to be standards-compliant in our adulation.
Even so, MS remain the clear leaders in marketing innovation, and for good reason. Consider this [civiblog.org] interview with Eben Moglen. If you read that, you'll find a debate where the interviewer holds a different opinion to the interviewee on a number of counts. If the FSF were serious about competing with Microsoft, they'd have created an arse-licking department and had them ask the questions. Then Moglen too could have been asked "Think of a really hard question for yourself, and then answer it. If that's all right. Sir."
The open source community just doesn't have the infrastructure for that sort of thing. Thus, the world has to wait for MS to show us the way once again. And the rosy pink cleanliness of Balmer's behind stands as eloquent testimony to the one field where microsoft's dominance remains unchallenged.
Ballmer's right (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes and no (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps you're purposedly ignoring some tools 9or maybe you don't know about them), like Visual Web Developper 2005 - which is much like Visual Studio (with some of the advanced features stripped off), that will sell for like 50$. While it's not like having the real/full VS.Net 2005, it's far better than being stuck with say, Dreamweaver and most other editors. Very innovative. An cheap, powerful IDE for the masses/hobbyists/those that code for fun/as a hobby.
Live Communications Server 2005 has quite a few nice and useful features too.
Indeed, they don't completely redefine the way we use computers everyday, but it's not like most people here like to claim (i.e. no innovation/new features whatsoever - they're just cloning apple, etc).
But hey, this is
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
And I can whip up a usable, very functional app in seconds that compiles to 3 platforms using REALbasic. [realbasic.com] If I want a Cocoa OS X app, I can use Xcode [apple.com] and Interface Builder, [apple.com] both of which are free.
Other platforms have similiar, and some would argue better, IDE solutions.
(tig)
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's greatest innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
Without this standarized hardware approach we wouldn't have desktop Unix or Linux.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Re:Asking *MS* about innovation? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd have to disagree, given the precondition that I find 'innovation' to be a pretty nebulous concept, and very much in the eye of the beholder.
For instance, Apple are often described as innovative for producing things like the iMac, integrated wifi, bringing high quality industrial design to their products, etc. (Even not putting a floppy drive in the iMac was seen as innovation. Still trying to work that one out.)
Yet these things are not new. Apple didn't invent wifi, nor the idea of integration (ask Adam Osborne), and designing things well is not new either. But they did them anyway, and they're all good things to have that weren't being done in a widespread way before. This seems to be the only definition of innovation that I can come up with that matches most people's ideas of innovation (when they rant about it on slashdot).
So, taking one of my main areas of interest, where I use Microsoft software, which is development, Microsoft had the following innovations:
That's without considering VS.net, either. It's amusing to note that when Apple released the version of Xcode with incremental compilation/linking, some slashbots ranted about how innovative this was, and when will Microsoft catch up and copy this?!!!!111 I believe at that point, MSVC had had this feature for 5+ years. Nuff said.
People will no doubt argue that these things were all done in some obscure package before Visual C++ had them, but as I say, if integrating wifi hardware into a laptop is innovation, then the things in the above list certainly count.
Microsoft Innovates like Enron did - with BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer does Microsoft a disservice by ranting about innovation but not actually delivering innovation. No wonder why theses Microsoft guys are so uncharismatic - people have a distaste for bullshit-slinging horn tooters.
IBM - the inventor of so many basic industry ideas - is declared a non-innovator.
Apple, who brought so many great ideas from the lab to desktop computing, ideas that Microsoft admittedly embraced after Apple delivered them successfully to market - doesn't get a mention.
And Google, who mostly innovated the idea of not screwing over internet users with ads and pop-ups and cross-marketing crap, is an exciting innovator.
IBM is the innovator of basic technology. Google is the innovator of doing the Internet right. Apple is the PC marketplace innovator.
Microsoft? Um, well they invented something... I just don't know what that is. Truetype? SQL? The mouse? The file system? Does ANYone know?
Re:He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at Open Office. Great idea, lousy implementation. Apart from the cost, what benefit does it have over Microsoft Office? There's nothing new in it, nothing innovative.
Look at LyX instead.
You've picked the wrong product to find serious innovation in. OpenOffice (and other office suites) is meant to provide an easy transition from Word (and its proprietary format). It would be outright stupid to do any serious innovation in it because that would increase the learning curve and defeat the purpose of an easy transition.
MS is on the downslope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shrinkwrap Software only business is over. 50 Billion$ on the bank or not. That's the simple truth. Be it that MS will roll on with XBox 360, 720 or whatever. But their core milkcow is withering.
The CEO of MS having a sweet-little-nothings chinwag with one of his minions and hideously bullshitting 90% of the time won't change that.
Re:free Puff Piece for Microsoft? Here? (Score:5, Insightful)
!!!
You should pray to develop such "horrid" software. There were two primary things that put the IBM PC on desks all over corporate America: 1) The TLA logo and 2) Lotus 1-2-3. Lotus invented the first "Killer App".
Microsoft introduced their first spreadsheet product before Lotus 1-2-3 hit the market (1982 for the former, 1983 the latter). It was such a huge scary success compared to that horrid Lotus crap that nobody can remember it's name ("Multiplan", BTW).
Excel (for Windows, it was originally introduced on some silly fruit computer of some sort) came out in 1987, leaving Lotus to pretty much own the spreadsheet market in the interim.
and swiftly abandoned by nearly everyone that wasn't glued to their memorized 1-2-3 key combos.
You mean like F1 = Help? Yeah, what a goof that was!
This message brought to you by Old Farts Inc, keeping history on track for hundreds if not thousands of years
Re:He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
As I stated.
Open Source has done a great deal.
It's just not innovative on the application front, or the OS front. And that's the area that matters to users. Python is great, but does it matter to a word processor user, or someone who wants to get to their foiles in a new way because the desktop metaphor just doesn't cut it for them?
And unless I'm wrong, Apple hasn't *copied* Open Source, but has in fact used it in exactly the way the authors (of the Open Source software used) wanted and explicitly stated in their licence. If you're going to call Apple out on doing what the Open Source community state that they want, then perhaps you need to define what the Open Source community should and should not want.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:4, Insightful)
Want a piece of me? Come and get it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ballmer, you are full of shit. You know why?
Anyone who says IBM and Oracle did not innovate is full of shit.
It is a person who did not dirty his hands with actual technology. Ballmer, show me your MSSQL Engine and let's compare it with the work of art & genious that is the Oracle SQL engine. It is like comparing "Made in Taiwan" and "Made in Switzerland" with Microsoft being the cheap taiwanese crap.
You guys managed to push your Windows SHIT over IBM's amazing OS/2 not because it was better. Far from it. You guys just had better marketing! You made dirty deals with intel and retail channels. You forced your crap upon us for too long, and now it's backlashing against you. I don't care that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on this planet - I don't use ANY of your products. Your BSA thugs are no use against me! They can visit my company offices and find NOTHING BUT LINUX & BSD!
Microsoft, wake up, you guys are crap! All those opensource people, they are not doing it because they hate you, not really, they are doing it because the alternative is simply shit! So what if some opensource solutions were not comparable to certain microsoft products? Bullshit walks, and money talks, and soon enough your money source will be no more as the opensource products out there better your products. I use OpenOffice and I love it, and I did not pay a dime for it.
Anyone who says IBM did not innovate, does not understand that the number one company today is IBM, holding the MOST patents! You don't know the kind of research facilities IBM runs, you don't know the kind of genious researchers working for IBM, and how they do not have to suffer draconian internal cultures such as the people in Microsoft.
Ballmer, WAKE UP! You like Google? No you don't! You hate their guts because they represent "Good" while MSFT represents "Evil". They are just so good there's nothing you can say against them. For example, They are not the ones removing spyware from their anti-spyware programs as part of a strategic move (hint!). They are not the ones buying young technology companies, in order to stiffle them and kill the competition before it reaches wide markets. They don't steal technology and try to make it better, like microsoft does (Never mind that Microsoft ends up making it worse yet, AND proprietary! Which is ridiculous!)
I strongly suggest you guys do things right while you have the money & the power. The chances are slipping under your feet. You guys have the chance to make it right, still - don't lose it! Such interviews do not impress people like myself - they do the opposite. Think about THAT.
Skaag
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't call the current bloaded "everything and the kitchen sink" MS Office apps "innovative".
WinCE shoehorned a bloated Windows OS into a small form factor. The success they have had has been due to their market monopoly rather than any technical excellence.
Yes, competition has faded in the face of monopoly market power.
OSS Not Inovative? (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS is so un-inovative, that Apple based their OS on it, borrows heavily (but they acknowledge it and contribute back). MS steals all the ideas and then declares it for their own.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Who drives them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those flaws have existed for YEARS.
They can even just look at one of the Open Source OS's and SEE how others have solved those problems.
Yet the problems still exist within Windows. I still have to ensure that the DAILY anti-virus/anti-spyware downloads happen.Go ahead and ask those people you've met WHY Microsoft does NOT just FIX the virus/spyware problem instead of forcing the users to replace the bandage EVERY SINGLE DAY and just HOPE that they aren't one of the first hit with a new strain of virus.
See what answer you get and that will tell you why other people don't share your opinion.Listen up.
The same virus that was known to infect Win98
THAT is the problem.
Microsoft's security model PREFERS for you to run ADDITIONAL 3rd party software because the OS itself does not (without massive amounts of work and testing on the part of the HIGHLY TRAINED administrator) provide any way of stopping viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, it's amazing how passionate many are about their particular product line. Shit, just read some of their blogs and you'll see how much many care about the products they work on, the user experience, and so on. So saying 'the literally don't care' is about as far from reality as I can imagine. So either you are psychotic or ignorant or the people at Microsoft you've interfaced with personally happen to be vastly different from those that I've met/socialized with/worked with.
I'm afraid to say that the evidence available does not support the implied conclusion, namely that because developers you have met care passionately about their jobs that quality software therefore winds up hitting the shelves. And here is the reason why you are a bit off, I think:
I can't speak for their marketers or upper-management,
It matters little how passionate the developers at Microsoft are if the upper management is having problems of vision, strategy, cohesiveness, etc. The products that Microsoft has produced have been by and large quite crappy, and I think the eventual cause of this was stated correctly by the AC OP: they're marketing driven, not technology driven. Such emphasis comes from the top.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
If you seriously think that Microsoft doesn't "understand" Open Source, you're an idiot. They understand it but they cannot ever show any support for it because doing so would concede ground and that territory is profit, shareprice and morale (all things that matter to a company). If there was a way to make equivalent money out of GPLed software, you can bet they'd do it. There isn't (they make more doing what they already do), so they don't. It's that simple.
Suggesting that they don't understand free software is a bizarre POV.
blah blah blah says the Microsoft marketing maven (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess they've gotta keep trying to find SOMETHING that can produce money outside of their desktop OS monopoly. But 15 years of this stuff is getting pretty old. IMO.
Another thing that cracks me up is when Microsoft talks about how WindowsCE costs less than GNU/Linux on embedded devices. This, from the company that consistantly loses ~$1 Billion annually on that productline. Talk about Cost of Ownership.
LoB
Re:Show me one example (Score:5, Insightful)
MS innovative, not inventive (Score:3, Insightful)
From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary :
innovative - using new methods or ideas [cambridge.org]
Notice there is nothing in that definition that indicates the origin of those ideas ? Microsoft are an innovative company, because they take ideas and use them. They aren't an inventive company, because they very often don't come up with any new ideas themselves.
IBM and Oracle are innovative companies too.
As for being inventive, I'm not sure about Oracle, however, IBM are, based on the fundamental intention of patents (registering new inventions), and based on the number of patents they are granted (more than 3000 in 2004), IBM are one of the most inventive, if not the most inventive organisation in the world.
Re:He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and that new graphics library (the one Apple beat to the punch with Core Image in Tiger) in Longhorn? "Avalon" is basically a copy of an open source window system called "Berlin" that never caught on because it was a bit early... good OpenGL video cards weren't cheap enough soon enough.
Re:innovation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know the history of OpenGL or anything about it at all, and only got into 3D programming once D3D was established. I suggest you learn some history, if only to balance your views.
Direct3D is innovative. It revs regularly, and it keeps up with technology. It provides a unified API to deal directly with multiple types of underlying hardware and architecture. It incorporates new hardware functionality directly into that API. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.
As a Direct3D programmer, I have to say there are two major problems with your argument: firstly, Microsoft didn't create Direct3D, they BOUGHT IT. OK, sure, they've changed it a lot, but mainly to just bring it in line (read "follow" or "catch up") with new hardware innovations by the graphics card vendors like NVIDIA (i.e. shaders, which MS did not invent), and to clean up some of the really braindead aspects of the original design of the API. Secondly, Direct3D never did anything new or original, it only cloned and in fact caught up to either (a) what could already be done in OpenGL or (b) what the hardware vendors invented. MS may sit on advisory boards that steer the development of these technologies now, but they aren't driving the process, that's for sure.
As an example to my point, find a PC game developer who uses Open/GL. Got one? Good. Now, if that developer is iD, go ahead and drop that and find another. Got another? Good. If that's Blizzard (for WoW), go ahead and drop that and find another. Got one? No?
Well, if your definition of "innovative" is "the product that most people use", then we're using very different definitions of "innovative". Most developers use Direct3D due to (extremely obvious) market forces, not because it was more "innovative". In fact (and I know many) most developers that already had experience with OpenGL were dragged kicking and screaming to Direct3D, because it really was an incredibly sh*t API compared to D3D, especially in the beginning.
Oh, please name one thing that can be done in Direct3D that cannot be done in OpenGL. Can't? That's because there isn't anything - with OpenGL's extension mechanism, you can do anything in GL that you can in D3D.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Microsoft grew from being handed the PC monopoly and grew not into a competitor, but into an anti-competitor, what Microsoft markets has never been designed to be the BEST on the market. That is what differentiates Microsoft from pretty much all other companies.
Think snake oil salesmen. Great marketing, not much product.
LoB
Re:What about Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who doesn't actually use OS X and has absolutely no idea of what features it has.
what has apple innovated lately?
Wait six years and see what appears in the next version of Windows after Longhorn, and you'll have the answer to your question.
Re:Name 5 innovations from Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
- PS / PDF totaly integrated into OS (nextstep / mac)
- application forwarding through X (any unix)
- central software / install repository (some linux distributions, xBSD)
- scripting languages (way before MS)
Re:Asking *MS* about innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Put it this way, Microsoft wants to convince the end-users (who know and care nothing about how software works or is written) that they can fly like that little bird. Why one would wish to do this is left up to the viewer's imagination, I guess. But the real message is that whatever you want to do with your computer, Windows will take you there. You may or may not be using a Microsoft application, depending upon your needs, but outside of Office, Microsoft could care less about that so long as it is a Windows application.
Microsoft wants Windows to be seen as the be-all and end-all of operating systems to the bulk of the user base. This takes applications, and lots of them, so that no matter what someone wants to do with their computer they can find someone with a program to do it. In reality, you can probably find several competing products, and pick the one that best suits your needs. Ballmer is clearly aware that there is no way any single company, even Microsoft, can possibly provide that much variety.
That's why Microsoft focuses so heavily on developer tools
Heck, I'm an example of what I'm talking about. I have a substantial home network (like a lot of
Re:Look at Microsoft's misdeeds (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of them, and I'm quite sure they all know how to read.
Additionally, please do not respond when you are being flamed. Flame wars bring nothing constructive to the community, they consume a lot of bandwidth, and they will almost always contribute to lower your karma.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'd say it's pretty much typical. I've been doing a lot of reading lately on conversation and confrontation. Most people seem to argue from implicit assumptions that:
1- my point of view is correct, therefore yours is wrong.
2- since my point of view is obviously correct, anyone who doesn't agree with me probably lacks information.
3- once the information has been provided too them, if they still don't agree with me, they have a problem with comprehension; they just "don't get it."
I've been guilty of that one a lot, myself.
Re:He's Not 100% Wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
maybe you see that in the bits you see, but it seems to me there are bits you're not seeing.
Linux is innovative. anyone who doesn't think so, probably hasn't built themselves an OpenEmbedded image, a GoboLinux USB-fob, a custom firewall boot-CD, a compute-server-room feeding a national ISP, a system of low-power MIPS boxes buried in the desert watching water supplies, a surf-board manufacturing fileserver, a tftp'able boot-image for the stereo, a terrabyte fileserver with streaming, an old-school MAMEbox
Linux is a desktop, but Linux can be far, far, far, far more things than a Microsoft binary release, to far more people. Linux is a desktop, Linux is not just a desktop, Linux is a car display, Linux is a fileserver, Linux is a synthesizer, etc. it need not be 'anyones way but your own' with Linux; the rule is the code is open, its up to you to make it work.
the problem with bothering with Microsoft propaganda is that it frames you, straight away, into an either/or argument on their terms. to argue against "Linux versus Microsoft" means "Linux as a desktop" versus "The Microsoft Universe". who cares about the desktop any more? there is no desktop.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
No bureaucracy does. Much less a marketing-driven one.
That's the best you can do? (Score:3, Insightful)
They manage the compatibility AND the security.
They can do it, but Microsoft cannot.I have. And one of those "basic security principles", for Windows, includes daily downloads of anti-virus/anti-spyware signatures.
I find it very amusing that you seem to be suggesting that anyone using Windows become well versed in "security".
Isn't Windows supposed to be "user friendly"?
Hold the phone, chumley! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I N N O V A T I O N (Score:2, Insightful)
Failure != lack of innovation.
Microsoft was the first to integrate a browser into the OS. While this does include some very bad concepts and potentially opens it up to more security problems, it's innovative.
So innovative that the KDE crew does it as well.
Re:These "innovations" are up to 40 years old. (Score:3, Insightful)
some wacko obscure package
Smalltalk is "some whacko obscure package" in the same way that Newton was "some whacko obscure philosopher".
Re:Who drives them? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sort of windows users who keep getting infected by viruses are those who will launch email attachments (and even supply the necessary passwords to the encrypted zipfiles!) and not update their O/S or apps. I see nothing in Linux that prevents such users from getting infected, other than they aren't using Linux at the moment.
Mozilla/Firefox really isn't much more secure than IE.
If users run their browsers and email apps as root/admin whether it's Windows or Linux you'll have the same problems.
NOW, if users run their browsers using _different_ accounts/roles compared to their normal main user (nonadmin) account then they'll be in a much safer situation. You can do this on recent Windows O/Ses and you can do this on Linux.
Except old versions of Mozilla (e.g. from SuSE 9.1 which my workplace uses) insist on ignoring umask when saving files - thus making it hard to share downloaded files with the main user account.
You can secure Windows. The problem is doing it in a way Joe Average can accept. I don't see Linux etc solving that - heck you can't even get a standard desktop (talking about choice misses the point - it's the defaults). With windows, Helpdesk can tell Joe Average to click on Start->run etc. With Linux, is it Ubuntu or Kubuntu or SuSE or Redhat or Man-whatever-it-is-next.
If the OSS GUI people ever standardize on something, it'll be easier for the trojan guys to attack Joe Average - since it's easier to get a fake javascript/etc thingy to look like the proper/standard dialog (for a bit of phishing or something). As of now, it's likely to look different - so many Linux users customize their UI, and too few users will be fooled, so it's not worth it.
Hey Linux is useful (at work we can't do what we need to do without Linux).
But too many people don't seem to see that the reason why windows machines have so many security problems is usually because of the users.
Once Linux starts to allow 3rd party binaries to still work even if the kernel is updated for security issues, then Linux will have more software companies writing for it. However it'll mean the same "virus" that infects Linux 2.x will still infect 2.x+y.
Maybe SELinux and similar stuff will help. But as it is, Linux as installed by most popular distros out there is not really much better in terms of security architecture.
Re:Who drives them? (Score:3, Insightful)
If your scanner finds a virus or spyware, it's too late: you've already been compromised. Just because the virus was eliminated doesn't mean it didn't get a chance to cause damage somewhere, You can't trust that machine again.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
I was at a conference this past week, and one presenter said that the information technology industry is mature, and the smart money is moving onto to biotech. Your list of 25-year-old+ computer innovations seems to lend support to his assertion. Then I read that SGI is dying and think about how many more computer makers there were 20 years ago than now. And processor speeds have stalled for the first time ever, leading to the multicore band-aid.
For all Ballmer's bluster about innovation, it seems to me the entire industry is stale. Where we go from here I don't know.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm very definitely not a liberal relativist.
I was referring not to the idea that "everyone's opinion is right", or "value judgements make people feel sad, boo-hoo", but rather the old principle from Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends & Influence People":
'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'
It's not 'evil' to believe that "I'm right and the other guy is wrong", but it's pointless to argue from the standpoint that "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, and since I've explained it to you patiently, you must be defective."
I've just been realizing that most serious conflicts I've had require -me- to have missed something as well as the other guy missing something. Not necessarily something technical, usually not something that changes my thinking in the slightest. But -something-, often something that turns out to be based on assumptions I've made. Often I've assumed that the other guy has had similar experiences to mine, or evaluates pros and cons exactly the same way I do.
Often the other guy comes around to my point of view; but -only- because I first took the time to try to understand his point of view.
Re:The monkey man screeches (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, engineers don't always make the best technical decisions however, which might explain why Intel used the Netburst and Itanium architectures... But economically speaking, Intel is more successful than all those other companies.
Re:I N N O V A T I O N (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, this is a pretty stupid argument. Innovation doesn't mean inventing something completely new and different from everything that preceded it. No invention or creation is like that. Even the USPTO agrees with me: every invention patented references other existing works. Innovation is creating something new which helps people do something they couldn't do before, or helps them do something better than they could do before. This could be as simple as combining some pre-existing technologies in a novel new way. The PS/PDF integration mentioned by someone else is an example of this. PS and PDF existed before Nextstep thought of using it throughout their GUI, but that doesn't render that idea "non-innovative". Web browsers are innovative because they use markup language and display things graphically, similar to typesetting. Gopher was just simple ASCII text. It probably pioneered the methods of retrieving data from a server on the internet (the back-end), but its methods for displaying data and what types of data it allowed to be displayed were not like the WWW (the front-end).
The problem with Microsoft is that they haven't created any of these types of innovation; at least none I know of, and none anyone here has ever bothered to list. No Clippy doesn't really count; innovations aren't very useful if no one really likes them. Every major product of theirs was purchased from someone else, not developed in-house. If they presented themselves as a successful technology integrator (which is the majority of what most large companies do these days), I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that. But by trying to rewrite history and claim themselves to be the original innovators, they're showing themselves to be dishonest.