Don Gould wrote:
Your average computer person isn't an idiot.

They don't have to be idiots to be taken in by very clever corporate propaganda.



Most of us can see the MS double speak propaganda machine as it spins into action.

They do them selves a dis-service everytime the spin half-truths and make
implications that just aren't true.

Correct but in the short term it makes our advocacy job harder when M$ has planted a
seed of doubt and uncertainty in the mind of the person who makes the software
implementation decisions.
And most of the time that doubt is based on a lie. Not usually a blatant stated one but one just implied.



Do *not* treat them M$ like a friend. If you are a open
source advocate, it will not reciprocate.


Personally I'm a SIFI fan and technology advocate.  I advocate getting
better and faster technology solutions out there.

All this industry in fighting does is slow down our rate of progress.

It is not in-fighting. M$ has shown itself time after time to be the enemy of open-source:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/
http://www.itmweb.com/f060903.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-06-29-gates-linux_x.htm


They do *not* deserve the benefit of the doubt.


But with that said, the people who work for M$ I treat like
members of
the opposite team. I pull their leg, give them (metaphorical)
stick and
generally get up to gentle hassling/banter. People *always* deserve a
minimum amount of respect.


That's exactly what they want you to do.  Then they can go out then and
write us all as nothing more than a bunch of anti-establishment enthusists.


So what do you suggest we go along to the seminars like all of the other supplicants and be "blessed" with their knowledge?


<snip>

They can see F/LOSS not only on the horizon but starting to
loom as well
and they are worried. F/LOSS threatens their business model
at it's core.

As I see it OSS is the only thing protecting their systems.

That's not how they see it


I like to hear what they have to say so I can equate what is going to need
protection next.

I don't understand.


I'm currently just counting down the days untill we see virus start to
attack these new smart phone things with MS Pocket OS on them.  There aren't
that many units out there yet so I suspect it will be a little longer before
we see anyone take aim but you can bet that it's going to happen - how do I
know this?.... errr, doh just look at history so far.

The quality of M$'s software is irrelevant... it always has been.


You can be assured that any meaningful information will only
be moving
in one direction and it won't be *from* Microsoft. M$ and
it's employees
are *extremely* well versed in fudging and avoiding awkward questions.


From my experience people avoid awkward questions because they would like to
agree with you but know it's a conflict of interest to do so.

The employees that will be meeting with the OSS guys in Auckland will be some of the movers and shakers in the M$-OSS fight in NZ. I seem to remember that the guy who mooted it was the same guy who gave that talk to the bureaucrats in Wellington.



Despite what M$ tells people it *is* the enemy of F/LOSS. Open Source
threatens it's business model and M$ will not give up it's licence to
print money without a fight.


I'd hardly call this a war.  I think that we in the IT industry get a bit
worked up over nothing.  Most people don't even know Linux (much less OSS)
even exists.

It's irrelevant what non-IT-knowledgable people know or don't. M$ know and OSS people know and both sides (yes... sides) know what the stakes in this are.
If you don't think OSS is going to the shake the IT industry to it's roots then you don't understand the issues.


Our biggest problem in the OSS game is getting the word out there.

That *is* the main battlefield.


I'm
still trying to work out how to generate revenue from OSS so I can do more
to market it.

Training and support.
Development of tailor-made software then it's continued support. Development is cheap and easy because so much is already done. Then support it after installation.



MS have a business model that collects cash so they can afford to pay for the best marketing and product support that money can buy. We're not going to break that by giving everything away for free are we?

Ohh, but we are. That,in fact, is what has M$ shaking in it's boots.

(BTW what product support?)

I have been to a few M$ events and what they need is hecklers and
questioners. People to remove their *perceived* credibility.
Too many people sit in those events like supplicants recieving wisdom
from above.


I think we need card swappers.

Not sure what you mean here.



You want to get more linux out there then we have to market the stuff better.

We seem to have had a succession of people who have pushed this line of thinking. Marketing is for people who have a product.
Linux is not a product.
Software is not product.
If you develop a business on the development, support and/or installation od open source SW *then* you have a product to market.
Linux/OSS does not need marketing,
there is no company,
there is no product,


it needs advocacy, people who will say nice things to the people who make the decisions.
Installfests are not part of their game and it always increases our installbase.
We are not a big company we shouldn't try to play that game. Let IBM etc do that if they want to.


ps: I don't claim to have all the right answers... I do claim to think and
make others think :)

good but make sure you do that from a solid foundation of facts.




--
Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer
Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept,
University of Canterbury - Te Whare Waananga o Waitaha
Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch New Zealand  Phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895

Reply via email to