Microsoft declares war on Linux and OpenOffice

[Wanted Man]

Microsoft looks to fight OpenOffice

We know Microsoft is worried about Google Docs and is fighting against (http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/183396.asp) its expansion. Google Docs threatens one of Microsoft's biggest cash cows – Office – and is, unlike Office, free for consumers.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/openoffice_logo.jpg
But Microsoft apparently is also worried about OpenOffice, the popular free, open-source productivity software developed by Sun Microsystems.


At least, that's what we can ascertain from a Microsoft job posting (https://careers.microsoft.com/JobDetails.aspx?ss=&pg=0&so=&rw=1&jid=9914&jlang=EN) (screenshot (http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/20091229openofficeposting.png)) that looks for a "compete lead" against OpenOffice and Linux. The posting says Microsoft is looking for someone to, in part, "build and manage the activities of a v-team of 13 district Linux & OpenOffice Compete Leads, and develop a broad set of marketing skills."


Microsoft declined to comment for this article.


According to the exo.performance.network (http://www.xpnet.com/charts.htm), which compiles data from 21,000 Windows computers, OpenOffice has about 12 percent of the market share. Meanwhile, Office 2007 has about 27 percent and Office 2003 has about 23 percent, according to exo.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/office_logo.jpg
According to OpenOffice.org, the software has been downloaded 100 million times since the release of version 3.0. And IBM distributes a version of OpenOffice as Lotus Symphony in Lotus Notes.


So, 12 percent? That's a sizable chunk of the market. And there's no doubt Microsoft would love to capture some of that.


How does Microsoft hope to do it? According to the job posting, the company is looking for someone with the "ability to implement programmatic marketing that will CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE think about Microsoft, specifically those with a 'hostile' or negative perception of the Microsoft platform."
Good luck.
Via ComputerWorld (http://blogs.computerworld.com/15327/why_does_microsoft_fear_openoffice_org)


http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/189605.asp?from=blog_last3


Want to help take down Linux? Apply here: https://careers.microsoft.com/JobDetails.aspx?ss=&pg=0&so=&rw=1&jid=9914&jlang=EN


:lol:

According to a Dutch newspaper, the goal of this "team" is to persuade companies and governments to stay away from Linux and OpenOffice. I wonder how they're going to do that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

when you buy a PC you're allowed to refuse Microsoft's license agreements for their software that comes with your computer like Windows and Office
the software license in my case belonged to HP, and they will give you a refund on the software if you call them
that's what I did
They sent me about US$300
I didn't actually install Linux or Open Office, instead I bought pirate copies of Windows and MS Office from a street vendor for about US$5

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad:F U C K M I C R O S O F T:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cur sing::cursing:

[革命者]

Can't we ask those people to work their same magic on communism? The "platform" is in equal bad shape (probably far worse in US).

No, better not sink to their level:

I hope we can expose any "programmatic" marketing for what most marketing is: nicely framed lies.


Scotty

[革命者]

According to a Dutch newspaper, the goal of this "team" is to persuade companies and governments to stay away from Linux and OpenOffice. I wonder how they're going to do that.Which newspaper and where and when?

[BOZG]

According to the job posting, the company is looking for someone with the "ability to implement programmatic marketing that will CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE think about Microsoft, specifically those with a 'hostile' or negative perception of the Microsoft platform."

Typical Microsoft. "Let's not bother making something decent, we'll just hype it up and make it seem like it's decent".

[BOZG]

Oh and in case MCX or whatever he's now known as stops by:

KDE > GNOME

Fuck you!

[Tyrlop]

they have allready been doing this for years now. implying their programs to the state instutions and companies.
in denmark the socialist party went to communal election with the program that all computers in schools and in the town halls and such should have opensource software.
some years later my dad wrote to the school-mayor and he asked why they still had not changed their software in our schools, since the schools just got new computers.
the mayor replied that he got the microsoft programs for free.
what can we conclude that they indoctrinate the kids with microsucks. we have to wins this fight.

[Wanted Man]

Which newspaper and where and when?

The best one. ;)

http://www.telegraaf.nl/digitaal/5689039/__Microsoft_verklaart_oorlog_aan_Linux__.html?p=11 ,2

[革命者]

The best one. ;)

http://www.telegraaf.nl/digitaal/5689039/__Microsoft_verklaart_oorlog_aan_Linux__.html?p=11 ,2Is reading that paper a test of how long you can keep your sanity?

But, thanks.:)

[革命者]

Typical Microsoft. "Let's not bother making something decent, we'll just hype it up and make it seem like it's decent".Typically market capitalism. The system forces you to it; people are dumbed down/kept dumb to extremes.

[BOZG]

Typically market capitalism. The system forces you to it; people are dumbed down/kept dumb to extremes.

Yes and No. Microsoft's dominance of the market and the amount of money they actually spend would actually allow them to create a semi-decent OS.

[革命者]

Yes and No. Microsoft's dominance of the market and the amount of money they actually spend would actually allow them to create a semi-decent OS.Not with shareholders demanding profit-maximalisation. They'll be sued if they'd try to provide quality products being a monopolist.

If Apple were to dominate the market, they'd be forced to do the same; quantity over quality.

[Chambered Word]

when you buy a PC you're allowed to refuse Microsoft's license agreements for their software that comes with your computer like Windows and Office
the software license in my case belonged to HP, and they will give you a refund on the software if you call them
that's what I did
They sent me about US$300
I didn't actually install Linux or Open Office, instead I bought pirate copies of Windows and MS Office from a street vendor for about US$5

Good one! :laugh:

[Yazman]

LOL @ Microsoft bashing. Apple, Google, and Sun Microsystems are all just as bad. If they were in Microsoft's position they might even be worse - this can definitely be said of Apple.

[An archist]

LOL @ Microsoft bashing. Apple, Google, and Sun Microsystems are all just as bad. If they were in Microsoft's position they might even be worse - this can definitely be said of Apple.
No-one denies that.

[革命者]

In the inevitable race to the bottom, Steve Jobs and co. have nevertheless kept distance from Microsoft not just because they would not be able to win a head-on battle for the lead in the race; I think they would be victorious in the end (now postmodernity/neoliberalism seems to have ended and people start to value intrinsic qualities again) if they tried. But with the death of Jobs I think they will try and keep up with Microsoft. Jobs is obviously more on the Left than most.

I hope they hit the bottom so hard that it will destroy the entire industry.

[Wanted Man]

LOL @ Microsoft bashing. Apple, Google, and Sun Microsystems are all just as bad. If they were in Microsoft's position they might even be worse - this can definitely be said of Apple.

Oh, well, in that case... :rolleyes:

[ls]

At least sun open-sourced a load of stuff, what have microsoft ever open sourced? They are still a cappie company but I'm just saying.

[Dimentio]

People don't use Open Office because of any ideological hatred of Microsoft. They use it because it is equal and it is free.

[Wanted Man]

I guess some people insist on paying loads of money for MS Office, and then go on forums to boast about how they are not Mac-loving hipsters or whatever strawman they think of. Good for them.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Oh and in case MCX or whatever he's now known as stops by:

KDE > GNOME

Fuck you!
No way in hell this is true.
GNOME has:
Better version improvements, better desktop interface and a better file manager! KDE is for fools, hence why there's a KUBUNTU specially for the KDE n00bs, rather then using KDE on Ubuntu.

Greets, MCX
:mad::mad::mad:

[Yazman]

Personally I prefer Open Office, or Microsoft Office 2003.

I can't understand what the hell Microsoft was thinking with the stupid as hell new interface that the latest version of Office has. Its terrible.

I don't like paying for applications in any case though.

[革命者]

No way in hell this is true.
GNOME has:
Better version improvements, better desktop interface and a better file manager! KDE is for fools, hence why there's a KUBUNTU specially for the KDE n00bs, rather then using KDE on Ubuntu.

Greets, MCX
:mad::mad::mad:GTK+ > Qt > anything on Java and JVM

Latest OpenOffice is fine.

[Killfacer]

I use open office because i can't be arsed to pay £70 for something i can get easily for free.

[Panda Tse Tung]

GTK+ > Qt > anything on Java and JVM

Latest OpenOffice is fine.
OpenOffice is Java-based. Pwned.

[革命者]

OpenOffice is Java-based. Pwned.Does it run on JVM?

[Panda Tse Tung]

It runs o n JRE. Dunno if it's the same.
edit: googled it, yes it is.

[Glenn Beck]

some years later my dad wrote to the school-mayor and he asked why they still had not changed their software in our schools, since the schools just got new computers.
the mayor replied that he got the microsoft programs for free.
what can we conclude that they indoctrinate the kids with microsucks. we have to wins this fight.

Yep, can you imagine that? They have people whose job it is to monitor if a major buyer (usually a government of some sort) is considering going open source and then convince them otherwise by feeding them stupid marketing propaganda and bribing them with incentives. They'll sell at a loss or even give it away just to maintain their monopoly, it's truly vile.

[Sendo]

Yep, can you imagine that? They have people whose job it is to monitor if a major buyer (usually a government of some sort) is considering going open source and then convince them otherwise by feeding them stupid marketing propaganda and bribing them with incentives. They'll sell at a loss or even give it away just to maintain their monopoly, it's truly vile.

They can't sell it at a loss, it's impossible. They have to maintain monopoly and curb piracy. The only goal is to get enough legit buyers to turn a profit. But giving away a free license to someone who would otherwise just use Linux doesn't cost them a dime, except the opportunity which tye had already lost.

But yes, it's vile. Definitely. So much crap in South Korea only runs on Windows or the unique Korean (for windows platform) proprietary bullshit. They're the fucking definition of idiot-savants when it comes to IT. (Website design when it works, communications infrastructure, connection speeds, % connected, search engine filters for blogs/sites/etc...check out naver.com). I would so love to use Ubuntu exclusively, but alas. Oh, and in addition to nearly no knowledge of Linux or Firefox!!!! among IT specialists, everyone here uses Explorer......VERSION 6. I mean like 98% at least.

[革命者]

It runs o n JRE. Dunno if it's the same.
edit: googled it, yes it is.Maybe they created an optimised API then; it doesn't work very well if I use their standard library. But on Mac OS X it works fine now (latest before-the-dot release & >).

[Revy]

Windows sucks....their "I'm a PC" commercials are terrible, and so ridiculous, nobody is a PC, they are people not Personal Computers. Also, it is just *wrong* for Windows to claim the term PC, as it could be applied very broadly to Mac and Linux computers.

The main thing Windows has going for it is the gaming. But it's probably cheaper to just get an Xbox 360 than to buy a gaming computer for >$1000.

[Sendo]

Windows sucks....their "I'm a PC" commercials are terrible, and so ridiculous, nobody is a PC, they are people not Personal Computers. Also, it is just *wrong* for Windows to claim the term PC, as it could be applied very broadly to Mac and Linux computers.

The main thing Windows has going for it is the gaming. But it's probably cheaper to just get an Xbox 360 than to buy a gaming computer for >$1000.

Or just collect old games. Seriously, with the library of the NES, Super NES, Genesis, PS1, N64, PS2, and Gamecube alone. (you could also do NeoGeo or some arcade platforms too with a little circuitry knowhow, or an emulator on your comp) There are plenty of games there to choose from. As far as new stuff goes...the innovation is sparse and hardly worth the investment unless you get a Wii. (I don't care how cool Halo looks...GoldenEye is still way more fun for me).

[Black Sheep]

when you buy a PC you're allowed to refuse Microsoft's license agreements for their software that comes with your computer like Windows and Office
the software license in my case belonged to HP, and they will give you a refund on the software if you call them
that's what I did
They sent me about US$300
I didn't actually install Linux or Open Office, instead I bought pirate copies of Windows and MS Office from a street vendor for about US$5
You are the Lord.Of everything!

[Revy]

Windows is so bad I wouldn't pirate it. not even for $5.

[black magick hustla]

i think office 2007 is better than open office. i didnt buy it though. nor did i buy windows 7, microsoft visual studio, mathematica, hmmnmmm. i like torrents

[Panda Tse Tung]

Ubuntu > Windows. The only 2 excuses one can have for using windows is gaming (even though for some reason some people argue against this) and if you work in the graphical or musical branch. Actually for the last Apple might be better.

[ckaihatsu]

Ubuntu > Windows.


Agreed.





The only 2 excuses one can have for using windows is gaming (even though for some reason some people argue against this) and if you work in the graphical or musical branch. Actually for the last Apple might be better.


The Mac *has* been the graphics-oriented platform since about 1983 when it brought digital desktop publishing to the public. Its OS, however, lagged throughout the '90s because of its proprietary pre-emptive multitasking -- background processes (applications) would run *far* slower than whatever you kept in the foreground. It wasn't till around 2000 that it *finally* adopted a modern OS, with protected memory (for each application) and non-pre-emptive multitasking for smooth running throughout.

The galaxy of free Linux-based apps has gained steady ground and Linux circa 2005 was what the Mac was circa 1995, in general relation to the mainstream. Now, five years later, the hardware has matured in general for all platforms while the Linux OS has become practically indistinguishable from a commercial one.

Speaking from experience, I'd say that, in terms of usability for graphics, the Linux option is getting *very close* to cloning the Mac experience altogether -- throw in the price difference (free vs. $$$) and it becomes something worth at least checking out.... (Check out Linux Mint 8 -- !!!)

[Honggweilo]

Ubuntu > Windows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8yrOAjfKM

[革命者]

BSD > Linux

[Panda Tse Tung]

You mean BSD Unix or the license (cause that'd make no sense)?
The first is shit, the second... well idk why it even exists.

[ls]

You mean BSD Unix or the license (cause that'd make no sense)?
The first is shit, the second... well idk why it even exists.

There is a BSD license and tere is a BSD NIX operating system too, I personally think both are awesome.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Why the hell does that license even exist? It contributes nothing to the massive world of licenses.

[ls]

If you say so, it's benefited the users of Windows and Mac OS X by allowing Apple and Microsoft to incorporate the excellent BSD networking stack into their operating systems. Some FOSS "purists" like to say how EVIL AND LIBERAL the BSD license is, but when it benefits people in an indirect way like that, how can it be "liberal"? People contribute to it and get their shit used in mainstream systems, making them on-the-whole better. What's so wrong with that?

[Ovi]

If you say so, it's benefited the users of Windows and Mac OS X by allowing Apple and Microsoft to incorporate the excellent BSD networking stack into their operating systems. Some FOSS "purists" like to say how EVIL AND LIBERAL the BSD license is, but when it benefits people in an indirect way like that, how can it be "liberal"? People contribute to it and get their shit used in mainstream systems, making them on-the-whole better. What's so wrong with that?
You probably already know this but the problem with BSD like licenses, in the fsf-ish sense is that it doesn't preserve the freedoms that you were given by the authors. You develop some awesome application, distribute it under the BSD and then some big company comes along, uses your work, makes some improvements and distributes that under a proprietary license. They will always have a better product than you since they have all your work to start with, but you don't have any of theirs, an unfair advantage. So in most cases it's simply not fair.

[ls]

You probably already know this but the problem with BSD like licenses, in the fsf-ish sense is that it doesn't preserve the freedoms that you were given by the authors. You develop some awesome application, distribute it under the BSD and then some big company comes along, uses your work, makes some improvements and distributes that under a proprietary license. They will always have a better product than you since they have all your work to start with, but you don't have any of theirs, an unfair advantage. So in most cases it's simply not fair.

But why shouldn't it be upto the people who make it, to choose if they want to make it even more free to use/incorporate. I agree with the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to use it for profit however, which is why I personally prefer that CC license which allows usage except to make profit rather than the BSD license. The BSD license is still really good though imo and it has improved the software community in general.

[Ovi]

But why shouldn't it be upto the people who make it, to choose if they want to make it even more free to use/incorporate.

I don't fully understand what you're saying. It is up to the developers to license their software. What copyleft advocates argue against are permissive licenses, those that allow others to reject their users the same freedoms that they received.


I agree with the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to use it for profit however, which is why I personally prefer that CC license which allows usage except to make profit rather than the BSD license. The BSD license is still really good though imo and it has improved the software community in general.
There's nothing bad in making money out of free software. In fact if you can't I don't think it's even GPL compatible since one of clauses is to be able to have the software for any use. I for one prefer copyleft most of the times because this is what keeps the free software community alive.

[ls]

I don't fully understand what you're saying. It is up to the developers to license their software. What copyleft advocates argue against are permissive licenses, those that allow others to reject their users the same freedoms that they received.

But it's pointless, do you think that 'permissive licenses' are liberal or something, it's a ridiculous elitist attitude towards "freedom" that gets us nowhere and divides the free software community in an unnecessary way.


There's nothing bad in making money out of free software. In fact if you can't I don't think it's even GPL compatible since one of clauses is to be able to have the software for any use. I for one prefer copyleft most of the times because this is what keeps the free software community alive.

Errrrr sorry come again? The GPL requires software to be open source and that you make the source code available for download, of course you can offer detailed support at a price (Debian do that if I'm not mistaken). BSD on the other hand tends to offer both detailed support and the software itself ..and allows incorporation into other things for nothing at all with not so much as a passing mention. What on earth could be wrong with that? Really objectively speaking, it is advancing the whole software community. It's not 'liberal' to say that it has benefited everyone on the whole, including users of Windows and OSX.

[Invincible Summer]

Or just collect old games. Seriously, with the library of the NES, Super NES, Genesis, PS1, N64, PS2, and Gamecube alone. (you could also do NeoGeo or some arcade platforms too with a little circuitry knowhow, or an emulator on your comp) There are plenty of games there to choose from. As far as new stuff goes...the innovation is sparse and hardly worth the investment unless you get a Wii. (I don't care how cool Halo looks...GoldenEye is still way more fun for me).


"He's gonna take you back to the past / to play the shitty games that suck ass / he'd rather have / a buffalo / take a diarrhea dump in his ear...."

[Ovi]

But it's pointless, do you think that 'permissive licenses' are liberal or something, it's a ridiculous elitist attitude towards "freedom" that gets us nowhere and divides the free software community in an unnecessary way.

No, but I wouldn't want leaches free riding the free software community. The fact that your work on the linux kernel or the deluge bittorrent software helps everybody, not only some greedy corporation is the reason there are so many volunteers working on these projects.


Errrrr sorry come again? The GPL requires software to be open source and that you make the source code available for download, of course you can offer detailed support at a price (Debian do that if I'm not mistaken). BSD on the other hand tends to offer both detailed support and the software itself ..and allows incorporation into other things for nothing at all with not so much as a passing mention. What on earth could be wrong with that? Really objectively speaking, it is advancing the whole software community. It's not 'liberal' to say that it has benefited everyone on the whole, including users of Windows and OSX.
Anyone can sell Debian cd's for as much as one wants. No one is stopping you. Quite on the contrary; if you couldn't it wouldn't be called free software, free as in freedom. I for one support copyleft: if you have the rights to modify a piece of someone else's software that you shouldn't restrict others to modify that. Plus if someone wants to use free software in a proprietary project, there's always the LGPL.

[Red Saxon]

This is nothing new, Microsoft booted out (often illegally) all the competition in the. 80's and 90's. Thankfully we have Linux :)

[革命者]

Fascinating talk, but I meant the OS. It is, in my experience, more stable and I like the interfaces it has beyond the POSIX ones and I can easily switch between Mac OS X and other BSD-based systems as far as the basic interfaces are concerned. Apple has actually added quite some niceties to it, which it has shared with the community (open source). Sadly enough not all of it; the GUI.

But still I do value intellectual property protection in this society; people appropriate intellectual property even when it means the death of the suppliers of reliable information, not just when they make a profit.

Software, however, should not be sold for these absurd prices. And it's only because of Microsoft's monopoly that they can make them. Any competitor serves only such small proportion of the market that their fixed costs are relatively much higher than Microsoft's. A clear example, by it's huge difference between fixed and variable costs, of the inherent flaws of the market; once you are on top you stay on top, while the competition starts a race to the bottom for workers' wages to increase their market share, followed by the monopolist who eventually crushes the competition. Only those in the quality goods niche of the market will survive, but these products are beyond reach of the workers, or they have to get a loan. But although the dynamics are the same in the software market as in any market, the race has stopped before hitting the bottom, like happens in many more markets.

The software market has been stabilised not to race for the bottom, because consumers don't no anything about software and its value, so they pay too much for the products. This difference between perceived and real value adds up to that which the owners expropriate from the workers anyway. For their accompliceness in the deceiving of the customer, the employees get something extra above the minimum; there's more than enough profit for the owner to become the richest man alive while paying his employees top-dollar.

With this extra money, the workers can make 'free' products for all. Business uses the open source products to improve their own products.

The moral of the story: the open source community forms a symbiosis with business. To be able to remove business, we must find ways to fund open source projects ourselves. I don't think donations like we now know them in the open source community can pay for the training and time that it takes to make a real free product; free from dependence on business.

But I could very well be wrong, for I don't know the open source community that well. My analysis rests on observations from the outside and my reasoning.

What do you think? Should we try and liberate the open source community? Could it, or a similar movement, pave the digital way to fundamental change in society? I am, as usual, just thinking aloud here.


Scotty