Welcome!

Linux Containers Authors: Elizabeth White, Yeshim Deniz, Pat Romanski, Liz McMillan, Zakia Bouachraoui

Related Topics: Linux Containers, Microsoft Cloud

Linux Containers: Article

Microsoft's Ballmer: "Linux Requires Our Concentrated Focus and Attention"

Microsoft's Ballmer: "Linux Requires Our Concentrated Focus and Attention"

  • Breaking i-Technology News: Google To Go Public - $2.7 Billion IPO Filing

    In a company-wide memo sent yesterday, Steve Ballmer called on Microsoft's 50,000-plus employees around the world to keep a very close eye on Linux and open source as a growing threat to the Redmond, WA-based company.

    Some key extracts from the memo:

    "IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security."


    "Noncommercial software products in general, and Linux in particular, present a competitive challenge for us and for our entire industry, and they require our concentrated focus and attention."


    "In this environment of lean budgets and concerns about Microsoft's attention to customers, noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as an interesting, 'good enough' or 'free' alternative."


    "There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."


    "While the noncommercial model may lead to many flavors of software, getting broad, consistent innovation requires coordination across many technology components. In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."

  • More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

    Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

    Comments (88) View Comments

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


    Most Recent Comments
    joseppi 04/29/04 11:05:07 AM EDT

    M$ Gates version of philanthropy is actually on the cheap.
    Do the math.
    Even if Gates actually gave a cash gift of $72 million dollars,
    for an individual or company with a net worth of $50 billion dollars,
    that is equivalent to someone with an annual income of $50,000
    giving away $72 dollars. Real generous.

    dave_bsr 04/29/04 10:05:49 AM EDT

    I use linux. I have friends who use linux. It's more user-friendly than windows - my linux setup doesn't BSOD, it doesn't give me "WARNING APPP TERMINATED TO TERMINATE APP PRESS OK NOW" errors, or other mindless idiocy. You don't have to hit Start to turn the cursed thing off, just type "shutdown -h now" on a console, the -h is for halt. Now that's user friendly, just...different.

    Last I checked, Open source and linux was for the user. that's what the GPL is all about, so the user doesn't get screwed by the seller - the user has the code and the freedom. The community makes Open apps to serve the community, otherwise they would not publish them and make them freely available. Contrary to what you've said, linux is for the user, while proprietary systems like to lie and tell you they are for the user, but really, they are just doing what they have to to sell product.

    I've left non-linux, non-geek users to sit at my icewm setup, and gone for about 20 minutes. I come back, they are playing music, surfing the web, and doing what they have to do. A smart person can handle a different set-up. And if you must have windows, use KDE. If you can get win32, KDE is natural.

    In 100 years i'll look back and laugh, and say, you know, 100 years ago we were worrying about the MS/linux debate, and linux was growing like a monster. I'll be using something entirely new and snazzy - hopefully open source still...and loving it.

    anonymOus 04/29/04 10:04:40 AM EDT

    The way microsoft will not beat linux outright is because it will refuse to die. As long as a hobbyist is around, Linux will be there. Microsoft knows and fears this

    abe furlman 04/29/04 10:03:31 AM EDT

    Bdowne01, you don't have to install linux on all the desktops. When the representative from Microsoft or the BSA comes around next week, just make sure they see and hear about your linux trial run on 10% of your desktops with openoffice and evolution!

    If you are backed into a corner, you need bargaining power. Even if it's not what your company needs, it's a powerful, low cost bluff, and your business associates should be able to understand that.

    I suggest you call a meeting.

    Oh, and do be sure and get feedback on your trial run anyway, even if it's just a ruse :)

    apt142 04/29/04 10:02:33 AM EDT

    When I look at a computer, I see a box of metal, plastic and electrons. I see mathematic equations and for/next loops. I see something engineered and well planned.

    As well, I should. I have a degree in Computer Science. I make my bread and butter off of it.

    When the average person sees one, they see something totally different. They see something mysterious and powerful. They see a creature capable of causing havoc and dismay. In most people minds, the only thing keeping this creature from devouring their latest report is the few things they know about it.

    Microsoft has nurtured this perception.

    That is why business men don't/won't change their OS. They know this demon, and they know how to appease it. Why switch to another when it could be much worse? Harder to appease? More complicated to work with?

    IMHO, that is the perception of value.

    I don't know what advice to give you. But, I've found that education is usually the best alternative. If that doesn't work, prove them wrong by making at least one box Linux and actually use it then demo it.

    I yearn for the days when computers are about as mysterious as cars.

    bdowne01 04/29/04 10:01:49 AM EDT

    I literally just walked out of a meeting were a few of the business-zombies had just quoted "Microsoft has us backed into a corner".

    The situation is that we have just divorced our parent company, and all of our MS site licensing went with it...so now we're left with 1000 or so desktop machines with Windows 2000 Pro on them, and Bill & Co. sending us a representative next week to investigate & give us a bill.

    During one of their rambles in the meeting, one of the lead "licensing" people actually said, "...and we can't do Linux on the desktop". (We've already successfully implemented Linux in replacment of several Windows servers).

    When I asked why (our users run the basic Office apps, with standard email (no Exchange), and all their work is done through a telnet app to an HP-UX server)... no one could give a single reason other than "everyone else uses Windows".

    Microsoft has won on that battlefield. Unless technically-inclined people can make it into upper management, MS will win over customers by simply giving false claims of security, lower TOC, and pretty color PowerPoint slides.

    It seems that in just about any other industry, a monopoly would be declared foul by business-savvy execs. For some reason, a monopoly in software gives a false sense of security to these people.

    Is it fear of the unknown? Is microsoft like the reassuring parent after they've been told a scary ghost story? I'm still trying to figure that out.

    Kjella 04/29/04 09:59:55 AM EDT

    Speaking as a guy who has almost finished his Masters in Industrial Economy, I still believe the biggest issue is the time that will inevitably be necessery to train monkeys to use Linux (and yes, I've seen employees that have *no* understanding of computers and need a step-by-step instruction to perform the most basic tasks.)

    Nobody says that "Start, Shut down, Restart" is a sensible sequence to restart a machine. But they have learned it, and it's stuck (unless they just push the reset button btw). Try *unlearning* a monkey and tell them you now have to pick something else (even if the choices make more sense if you know your way around a computer), and they'll be stomped and need time to adapt.

    And this goes on for a number of things that are so basic, that you would never even consider it a problem. I can change to IE/Opera/Mozilla or Textpad/Wordpad/Word/Textpad//StarOffice/OpenOffic e/KOffice and switch between them with no big difficulties, I get around the menus and know what I'm looking for. But I know quite a few that just couldn't grasp it on their own.

    molarmass 04/29/04 09:57:10 AM EDT

    Eventually Windows as an operating system will go the way of the IBM PS/2 and OS/2. It will take some time but the fact is that costly and proprietary simply cannot compete against free and open in the longer with run all other things being equal. Linux has matured significantly over the past 3 years. Now with 2.6, Windows has a significant amount of catching up to do, throwing the current equilibrium out of balance. The only significant hinderance I see is the throng of point-and-click admins out there who are scared sh*tless of anything that doesn't start with the letters WIN because they are so woefully underskilled in hard technology (read, not point-and-click).

    triskaidec 04/29/04 09:55:18 AM EDT

    Like you point out, Xerithane, it will increasingly be impossible to "outsmart" a collective community of many highly-educated and experienced professionals and academicians [and of course the rest of us unwashed masses], who contribute to the Open Source community precisely in their own area of expertise. Also, for a corporation (even one the size of MS) to consistently have that calibre of people *programming* (rather than planning, designing, and managing) would be quite uncommon, to say the least. I think it's safe to say that most industry professionals, however experienced or talented, would generally be hard-pressed to compete with a PhD in his own area of specialization and/or research interest!

    From a business perspective, Open Source is fascinating (to me) because development is largely the result of a community of individuals devoting leisure time to programming, as opposed to programming being 'work' - for whom coding is something they enjoy, and may or may not also be a way of making a living. Many of the problems traditionally associated with management of programmers - especially motivation to do more than the least which is required - become rather irrelevant. Self-motivation and internal incentive - a manager's dream!

    Value doesn't originate in new features and bleeding-edge technology, it originates with concern for the customer and the desire [and ability!] to deliver a worthwhile piece of software. Sufficient advertising sorcery and good marketing and PR can usually fool the general populace, but if a firm adopts a strategic direction like this, they can't help but be forced into a more fair fight where market power becomes less of a factor.

    At least, so we hope...

    Zordak 04/29/04 09:47:36 AM EDT

    In my opinion, there is one major reason MS has not done this (and I don't think they will any time in the near future). The scenario that you suggest where they hijack the Linux kernel and close it up is illegal, even for them.

    It would not be difficult for Linus to win a court battle against them with such a flagrant breach of licensing terms. Since the kernel would have to stay the same, it would make it much easier for people to create an emulation layer that would make software for "MS Winux(tm)" -- or whatever they call it -- run on other Linux distros (the Wine people have already done an impressive job of making many Windows programs run sort of decently, and that's without a common kernel). So, anybody who does not want to mess with the stupid MS Winux mess could just get a copy of MS Office and whatever other apps they need and run it on their stock Linux. Since the core of the MS monopoly is tying everything so tightly to the OS that it is not practical to migrate to other platforms, the last thing they want to do is make it easier for people to create migration solutions. Hence, no MS Winux.

    I'd bet they've already ported all of their major software apps to various UNIX and LINUX variants just for research, and have probably rolled a LINUX distro or two just for grins. That doesn't mean any of it will ever see the light of day

    BlackBolt 04/29/04 09:45:38 AM EDT

    So what you're saying is that MS can LEGALLY take the Linux kernel, fork it (keeping it GPLed), gradually make it totally incompatible with the original linux kernel (embrace and extend), and steal developers to the new MS-controlled kernel that has, like OSX, a fully proprietary and secret GUI on top of the kernel. It will run all Linux apps, it will run all Windows apps, it will have corporate support, it will not crash as much. And even though the kernel is fully open, the apps will be written for and tied to the secret GUI layer, thus making porting nearly impossible.

    This is exactly what Apple is doing to linux and BSD right now with OSX. OSX is stealing the hordes of linux and unix developers who were only "into" linux because it was technologically cool, not because it was free. If *any* part of the system is proprietary, they've got you locked in, whether you admit it or not.

    BoomerSooner 04/29/04 09:35:00 AM EDT

    Realistically, that makes my point even stronger. Without breaking the DMCA you couldn't reverse-engineer MS Linux and therfore prove they were violating the GPL. With 40 Billion in the bank they can afford better/more lawyers (hell they can buy laws) than the Open Source community.

    That is what scares me. Personally I like OS X over windows and linux.

    phatlipmojo 04/29/04 09:33:20 AM EDT

    Actually, your idea is pretty good. But for MS's purposes (i.e. making money without regard for the law, consumers, or pretty much anything else), they'd be better off with a FreeBSD base, because then they wouldn't have to GPL anything they modify from the underlying *NIX to make their GUI fit more tightly (or be more kludgey, which is I suppose more likely from MS). Even the teeniest possibility of GPL 'infection' would be trouble for MS's business model.
    As a fan of Apple, I find the simplicity and potential for effectiveness of your idea tremendously frightening.

    jbolden 04/29/04 09:32:43 AM EDT

    Ever hear of the GNU public license that comes with the Linux kernel. You can't make it propietery because:

    1) You have to provide source
    2) You have to grant the rights of others to change it
    3) You cannot charge a licensing fee only a distribution fee

    Now note that Apple actually keeps Darwin fully open source.

    BoomerSooner 04/29/04 09:31:45 AM EDT

    Here's all MS needs to do to beat Linux. It's simple.

    Do what Apple did with OS X but use Linux instead. Ignore X-Windows and any kernel development that is made you release under GPL. Now Windows will still be a proprietary system (like OS X) but they will have a system that scales, is secure, cost them next to nothing to develop (the base OS like darwin) and will be very competitive with any Unix variant free or not that is thrown at MS/Linux (no GNU necessary as there is no GNU/Darwin/OS X) or better yet just call it MS Windows/NX.

    If MS did this it would kill, Linux, OS X, Solaris (and all the Unix variants). Granted this is just my opinion but realistically there is nothing to stop them from doing this. Hell even better yet just take the Linux code out there, freeze it and make your own MS Linux Kernel fork and that will REALLY piss some people off, but there isn't a damn thing they could do.

    Being an OS X fan I hope to hell this never happens but beware of your fears (as this is one of mine!).

    Xerithane 04/29/04 09:29:59 AM EDT

    Outsmarting some of the smartest developers on the planet is going to be very difficult. We don't need marketing, we have word of mouth. It's proven itself time and time again that word of mouth is more important than any advertising campaign ever ran.

    Microsoft will change their "Strategy" claiming they will win with it each time they do it. In reality, it's showing Microsoft doesn't really know what to do with it. They'll pull BS lines, about IBM and liability, but in reality it means nothing.

    I think the last strategy Microsoft will come up with is writing quality software, which is the real reason why most people switch I think. At that point, I hope it's too late for them. They've had their time in the spotlight, they've helped and done their part evolving computers to where they've been. They are a dinosaur now, desperately holding on by using yesterdays flawed technology and attempting to purchase innovation. Not to say I think Microsoft will ever go away. It's going to change drastically though.

    Zeinfeld 04/29/04 09:25:53 AM EDT

    actually Microsoft shows every sign of knowing the difference between GPL and Open Source.

    As a rough guide GPL = OSS + RMSIdeology

    If you know RMS or take intellecual property seriously then you are going to have a very different take on the GPL than if you just say 'I don't care so long as I don't have to pay'.

    The whole point of GPL was to make it impossible to charge for software by flooding the market with free software constrained only by not being allowed to be mixed with paid software. The fact that Red Hat and co have found loopholes that allow them to make a buck does not alter that fact. Technically they may be right, but I don't think RMS would agree (no I am not about to find out, conversations with RMS have serious overheap).

    I think that a lot of the 'open source' software movement is in pretty much the same state as 'amateur athletics' used to be where everyone knew that athletes were being paid but everything was surrounded by masses of humbug. We know that there are many 'open source' companies who are cheating on the GPL terms, but everyone carries on prating the 'free is good' mantra.

    anion 04/29/04 09:24:21 AM EDT

    So what if open source doesn't make business sense? I'm not a business. I'm a person who uses computers. I don't care whether or not a business can make money off of Open Source. All I want is software that:

    1) Works correctly
    2) Is secure
    3) Is affordable
    4) I can alter to suit my needs

    Open source gives me this, Microsoft software does not.

    zebbers 04/29/04 09:23:31 AM EDT

    MS's business model shouldnt exist.

    They let use a piece of software that you purchased, only under their conditions...giving them as much control as they want to claim in a EULA...and of course without owing you anything by way of merchantibility.

    I wouldn't mind software licensing if companies were actually held responsible for holding up their end of the bargain.

    Personally closed source is useful for a couple things: custom applications on strange platforms for strange devices that some company may have already developed and is selling that meets your needs. And, extensions of that idea.

    A whole lot else can be met with opensource. Almost every small business can be run with an entirely opensource setup. Small business is the major brunt of America's economy. Personal users are even more dificult for the penetration and learning curve...but as the young computer saavy grow up and the old computer illiterate die, we will have a mostly computer literate society.

    Personally I think any small business can do very well and save a boatload of money by hiring a consultant to setup some boxes, install required software and go. No more licensing fees. None of that crap. Got a problem? Bring back the consultant, hell youd need a few fulltime MCSEs anyways. Need an app not made? I vision a work-for-hire opportunity for programmers, maybe with some sort of middle-man.

    Who knows. Anyways, I'm all for copyright, Im all for protecting your created code...but I'm also all for customer service. And MS dicks its customers, and shouldnt be allowed to do that with the leverage of their existing monopoly. Companies should have 0.00000 rights

    BlackBolt 04/29/04 09:22:14 AM EDT

    It's extremely unlikely that Apple will ever open any code that doesn't legally have to be opened, unless it's to further the use of a new standard they have created.
    But as a user who likes to improve stuff, it's on my wishlist anyway. I run into situations where the code would be helpful DAILY. It's great for security, bugfixing, and optimization. I personally would have patched half the stupid little bugs and limitations in OSX *myself* if the source was open. As it is now, we wait for large official updates which may or may not fix our problems. And we PAY for many of the updates. You want double the Jaguar speed for free? Give me the code. There's a lot of itches that need to be scratched in OSX, and a whole lot of developers migrating over from linux and unix who love to code for fun. You do the math. The trickledown of code fixes would benefit *every single user* of OSX.

    But for Apple to surrender control in order to gain my customer satisfaction? Nope. I honestly believe Microsoft will do it first, and Apple may or may not follow. They're more stubborn and proprietary than MS (but not quite as evil). But it makes a lot more sense for Apple to do it, since they make most of their money off their hardware, and larger apps like FinalCut Pro that aren't part of the OS. Yes, the OS draws in new users, but it's the hardware I'm primarily paying my $3000 for, and the improvements we users would make to the OS would improve the value of the total package. Think about how many Slashdotters have switched because of Fink. Without Fink providing access to open-source goodies, there'd be a lot less sales of OSX. If Apple realized what they've got and opened the floodgates to us coders, there'd be a lot more sales and OSX would be much better system. And we could be the scapegoats when the DRM guys come calling! Giving the users extra functionality can't hurt Apple beyond what they'd gain in free labor and goodwill. But they'd lose the ability to force the dock on us and dictate how our systems should look and behave. And judging from Apple's history, they're more interested in controlling the system than improving it. The "you-can't-use-our-iDVD-software-with-a-third-part y-DVD" thing comes to mind.

    Open-source and free software coders want to "Think Different", but they need the code to make it happen.

    SayWhat?? 04/29/04 09:21:11 AM EDT

    > Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX -
    > they'd go out of business.

    How would Apple go out of business? Everyone who wants to run OSX needs a Macintosh, and each Macintosh needs OSX.

    Hugh Kir 04/29/04 09:20:36 AM EDT

    I disagree with the statement that "complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense". I can understand that it doesn't make sense for Microsoft, which makes its money from selling the software, but there are plenty of other business models under which complete and utter OSS makes perfect sense. One example of this would be if you were selling a piece of hardware, and wanted that hardware to work with as many platforms as possible, then open sourcing the drivers would probably be a pretty good way to go. There are plenty of other examples as well.

    As for Microsoft being anti-GPL, why are they anti-GPL? I can understand why they wouldn't want to license their software under the GPL, but what do they care if someone else does? Unless Microsoft were hoping to use parts of GPL'ed code and release the results as closed source; if that were the case, I'd have to say I wouldn't have a whole lot of sympathy.

    tshak 04/29/04 09:19:17 AM EDT

    No one is anti open source, not even Microsoft. Ballmer is just an idiot who doesn't always properly define open source. Microsoft is anti-GPL, and they also want to protect the intellectual property that they've spent billions on. However, when it came to .NET, they released the source code via the Shared Source license (not true OSS, I know). Because of the nature of .NET they felt it made business sense. And that's what it comes down to. Complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense. Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX - they'd go out of business. But they did embrace the concept to an extent with Darwin. It's all about balance and not about extremes.

    BiasedOrUnbiased 04/29/04 09:17:48 AM EDT

    talking of msn.com, if I search on "Ballmer's monkey dance", what would I get?

    Yup, right to it!

    74nova 04/29/04 09:07:34 AM EDT

    Currently, the entire first page of search results on msn.com for "linux" is very pro-linux. All 14 are tutorials, guides, or stuff like redhat.com. Just thought that was interesting.

    Renegade Lisp 04/29/04 09:04:04 AM EDT

    Seriously, you don't believe this, do you? IE has a history of breaking every conceivable W3C standard as Microsoft sees fit, and it's only because of Microsoft's monopoly that they can get away with it.

    Have you ever tried to make any web page look the same in IE and any other browser? Surely, the very idea of being "the most compatible" is somewhat moot if there's no point of reference. Who (or what) do you think IE is compatible with?

    And concerning which browser is "the best", there's always the classic list of 101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that IE cannot.

    Sheetrock 04/29/04 08:59:48 AM EDT

    In my opinion, Microsoft has historically done poorly in anticipating and addressing new trends in computing especially with regards to the information superhighway.

    They were slow to make their system interoperate with the Internet, slow to recognize the value of providing the Internet as a service to home users, and slow to embrace the Internet as a medium for exchanging content such as movies and music.

    However, they also absolutely cleaned up once they caught on. MSN, in conjunction with their WebTV service, has grown to become a leading contender. Internet Explorer is the best and most compatible web browser. And Media Player is poised to potentially overrun Apple's iTunes as a means of offering not only music but movies on demand.

    MS observes the people on the cutting-edge and provide better services while avoiding the pitfalls the early-adopters fall into. Linux users would do well to take notice and avoid resting on their laurels, because Windows seems to be getting better faster than X-Windows.

    MonkeyBoyGyrations 04/29/04 08:49:56 AM EDT

    No thread on Ballmer would ever be cmplete without someone pointing to NTK's "CEO of the Dance" page, right?

    $$$$$$ 04/29/04 08:45:59 AM EDT

    According to Corporate Giving Watch, Microsoft is the most giving corporation in America - see salon.com article.

    Quezztion 04/29/04 08:44:03 AM EDT

    $12.4 billion, huh? Does he give to charity? I sometimes wonder if a person couldn't do more good by just not accumulating so much to begin with. Leave more in the pool rather than try to empty the pool and then attempt to look magnanimous by donating to charity.
    Still, it's nice that Bill gates gives back and it's one thing I can respect about him. What about Steve though anyone know?

    Ballmerphiliac 04/29/04 08:39:24 AM EDT

    Hey, k_head, lay off ballmer - I love this guy. Just think of being in
    Forbes list yourself:

    Steven Ballmer 19
    47 , self made

    Source: Microsoft

    Net Worth: $12.4 bil

    Country of citizenship: United States
    Residence: Redmond, WA, United States

    k_head 04/29/04 08:27:32 AM EDT

    What a damning indictment of capitalism when you can automatically presume that any large company is unethical by default. That's it's impossible to grow a company without playing dirty.

    pair-a-noid 04/29/04 08:26:23 AM EDT

    I suspect they are trying to hide the fact that M$ has a LOT of STOLEN Linux code in it.

    Why not eh? Gate$ is a known IP thief and general bandit. And with the source code to M$ all closed up, who's to know?

    Linux birthdate, 1991
    Windows birthdate, 1995 (Win 95 that is)

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

    InsideOutside00 04/29/04 08:24:14 AM EDT

    Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as this internal one, Ballmer mentions Linux only once!!

    arkanes 04/29/04 08:19:51 AM EDT

    Some rich guy (I want to say it was Ballmer, but I'm not sure) was quoted in an interview as saying: "You can make a million dollars and still stay a moral. But you can't make a billion."

    Dismayed63 04/29/04 08:18:06 AM EDT

    Microsoft will buy SCO

    It all makes sense now. Microsoft is going to buy SCO if they win the lawsuit. By purchasing SCO they will suddenly get rights to the IP in Linux and can either sell it or shut it down and they have the money and legal department to do it.

    fishbonez 04/29/04 08:15:03 AM EDT

    actually appears that Paul Allen orchestrated the SCO investment. I say this because:

    Paul Allen is a former member of the board of directors of MS and the second largest shareholder. Paul Allen now serves as a senior strategy advisor to top Microsoft executives.
    Paul Allen is one of the largest investors in BayStar Capital.
    So Paul Allen is in a position to advise and influence both MS and Baystar. He also has significant financial holdings in both companies.

    LetUsNotForget 04/29/04 08:11:36 AM EDT

    Let us not forget what Bruce Perens reminded us just 6 weeks ago: "Business Week has confirmed that Microsoft arranged the Baystar investment in SCO. A managing partner of Baystar says the call wasn't from Gates or Ballmer. But it wouldn't have to be, would it? Obviously, there's more investigation to do."

    IoT & Smart Cities Stories
    A valuable conference experience generates new contacts, sales leads, potential strategic partners and potential investors; helps gather competitive intelligence and even provides inspiration for new products and services. Conference Guru works with conference organizers to pass great deals to great conferences, helping you discover new conferences and increase your return on investment.
    DXWorldEXPO LLC announced today that ICOHOLDER named "Media Sponsor" of Miami Blockchain Event by FinTechEXPO. ICOHOLDER gives detailed information and help the community to invest in the trusty projects. Miami Blockchain Event by FinTechEXPO has opened its Call for Papers. The two-day event will present 20 top Blockchain experts. All speaking inquiries which covers the following information can be submitted by email to [email protected] Miami Blockchain Event by FinTechEXPOalso offers sp...
    Headquartered in Plainsboro, NJ, Synametrics Technologies has provided IT professionals and computer systems developers since 1997. Based on the success of their initial product offerings (WinSQL and DeltaCopy), the company continues to create and hone innovative products that help its customers get more from their computer applications, databases and infrastructure. To date, over one million users around the world have chosen Synametrics solutions to help power their accelerated business or per...
    Poor data quality and analytics drive down business value. In fact, Gartner estimated that the average financial impact of poor data quality on organizations is $9.7 million per year. But bad data is much more than a cost center. By eroding trust in information, analytics and the business decisions based on these, it is a serious impediment to digital transformation.
    @DevOpsSummit at Cloud Expo, taking place November 12-13 in New York City, NY, is co-located with 22nd international CloudEXPO | first international DXWorldEXPO and will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading industry players in the world. The widespread success of cloud computing is driving the DevOps revolution in enterprise IT. Now as never before, development teams must communicate and collaborate in a dynamic, 24/7/365 environment. There is no time t...
    When talking IoT we often focus on the devices, the sensors, the hardware itself. The new smart appliances, the new smart or self-driving cars (which are amalgamations of many ‘things'). When we are looking at the world of IoT, we should take a step back, look at the big picture. What value are these devices providing. IoT is not about the devices, its about the data consumed and generated. The devices are tools, mechanisms, conduits. This paper discusses the considerations when dealing with the...
    SYS-CON Events announced today that IoT Global Network has been named “Media Sponsor” of SYS-CON's @ThingsExpo, which will take place on June 6–8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. The IoT Global Network is a platform where you can connect with industry experts and network across the IoT community to build the successful IoT business of the future.
    IoT is rapidly becoming mainstream as more and more investments are made into the platforms and technology. As this movement continues to expand and gain momentum it creates a massive wall of noise that can be difficult to sift through. Unfortunately, this inevitably makes IoT less approachable for people to get started with and can hamper efforts to integrate this key technology into your own portfolio. There are so many connected products already in place today with many hundreds more on the h...
    The best way to leverage your Cloud Expo presence as a sponsor and exhibitor is to plan your news announcements around our events. The press covering Cloud Expo and @ThingsExpo will have access to these releases and will amplify your news announcements. More than two dozen Cloud companies either set deals at our shows or have announced their mergers and acquisitions at Cloud Expo. Product announcements during our show provide your company with the most reach through our targeted audiences.
    CloudEXPO New York 2018, colocated with DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City and will bring together Cloud Computing, FinTech and Blockchain, Digital Transformation, Big Data, Internet of Things, DevOps, AI, Machine Learning and WebRTC to one location.