Hmmm, I wonder if a clever attorney could tweak those statements from
Ballmer and actually begin to hold M$ responsible for the high cost
shouldered by countless companies and individuals for the many shortcomings
of M$ products (lockups, security, flat out misrepresentations of capability
with O/S versions and applications, etc.). Then again, who could possibly
outspend the M$ demigod in court in a single lifetime? Okay, forget it. I
guess I just have to scrap all Linux plans on my part because I am not
indemnified by Linux... <g> (NOT!)
Seriously, in a sense M$ has put their resources at financial risk by not
stepping up and correcting their errors, or at least acknowledging
responsibility for their design flaws. By giving folks a reason to pursue
alternative Operating Systems and non-M$ applications they forfeit market
share. It is a small bleeding now, but as time goes on I feel it will turn
into a flood - at which point
M$ may finally come out with decent stuff that is truly cost effective
(assume they alter their business to dramatically reduce overhead...). But
it may be too little too late by then.
I, for one, would love to see a viable alternative to point clients to right
now. In some special design approaches it can be done. But I hesitate to
move folks into a non-M$ O/S and/or application world for their desktop
machinery at this point. And it is not for the benefit of M$ having any
kind of indemnification - although that would be nice <g>... And it is not
because I despise M$. Rather, I have been pushed into a position of
defending M$ desktop solutions with all the chatter re: Linux being such a
wonderful alternative. With each passing year the argument in favor of
using M$ for the desktop diminishes just a little more.
One real life advantage in using M$ is I don't have to explain why things go
wrong to clients, like BSOD, needing to reboot often, lost network
connections, etc. I merely say, "it is a M$ issue.", point them to the M$
KB, and there is no way I can be held accountable. Hey! Therein lays my
defacto indemnification! Steve Ballmer is right! Yeah, just send a client
to M$ KB and all is handled. It leaves me off the hook! I bet I could even
start to write really crappy code in VFP, then blame it on the M$ O/S and
get away with it... And I could follow the M$ "road map" Ballmer mentions
and still charge clients for the lousy software and try to lay it off onto
M$... I see it so clearly now! Okay, back to scrapping plans for Linux on
the desktop... <g>
Gil
Gilbert M. Hale
New Freedom Data Resources
Pittsford, NY
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces /AT/ leafe .DO.T com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com]On
> Behalf Of Ed Leafe
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: ProFox Mailing List
> Subject: [OT] Ballmer at it again
>
>
> Here's a great article on Steve Ballmer's latest anti-Linux rant:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031022014413296 (or
> http://tinyurl.com/ryhe). I particularly liked this part:
>
> 'There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the
> line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we
> provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send
> e-mail. None of that is true in the other world. So far, I think our
> model works pretty well,' Ballmer said.
>
> Rear end on the line? Indemnify its customers? Doesn't
> sound like any
> of the license agreements I've ever read from Microsoft. The ones that
> I have read go on at great length to specifically take their "rear end"
> out of the picture, and to indemnify *Microsoft*, not me.
>
> I wonder why, if their software is so superior and
> "trustworthy", that
> they don't back it up by putting their own finances at risk, instead of
> paying a team of lawyers bundles of cash to close every potential
> loophole that might make them liable for their mistakes?
>
> ___/
> /
> __/
> /
> ____/
> Ed Leafe
> http://leafe.com/
> http://opentech.leafe.com
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Gilbert M. Hale |
