Feeds

Muth ‘the mouth’ accidentally boosts Linux

And seems to suggest giving away IE for free...

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Somebody in Microsoft legal circles should speak to Ed Muth, enterprise marketing group manager for NT. He's been talking to ZDNN (Microsoft has many business ties with Softbank, ZDNN's parent) and his remarks could be used against Microsoft. Muth was reacting to the Intel/Netscape investment in Red Hat Software, and he clearly saw Linux as a competitor to NT. Referring to the investment and the fact that Linux itself is "free" (the fee charged for the CD-ROM is essentially a media and marketing charge), he said "It's a difficult business model to make work." But the comparison between the "free" "integrated" IE and Windows 9x was just too close for this argument. So why did Microsoft give IE away (when Netscape was charging for its browser) if that would make it a hard business model to follow? Muth then said that the "announcement" (Microsoft does not like to name Linux distributors such as Red Hat and Caldera, lest it publicises Linux beyond the trade press) would more likely affect other Unix vendors rather than NT. This suggests that Muth already believes that Linux is entering the corporate space (which is hardly the case on any scale - yet), because home users are extremely unlikely to have any other Unix flavour installed (and at home, it is mostly being used in a dual boot with Windows, or as an alternative to Windows). Muth evidently finds it hard to see Linux as a movement that owes much of its success to a reaction against Microsoft's hegemony. He sees Linux as a company competing with Microsoft when he says: "Companies need to protect their IP territory. Otherwise, there is no reason to stay in business." The Ziff piece also dug out a lawyer, a certain Rich Gray, to suggest that the Linux model may not last because "Linux could be co-opted by an applications maker. If a company invented a killer app for Linux and didn't use the code, you could corner the market by controlling access to that application." That could make two people who might soon be pursuing other interests. ® Click for more stories

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
Banking apps: Handy, can grab all your money... and RIDDLED with coding flaws
Yep, that one place you'd hoped you wouldn't find 'em
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Primetime precrime? Minority Report TV series 'being developed'
I have to know. I have to find out what happened to my life
Ex-IBM CEO John Akers dies at 79
An era disrupted by the advent of the PC
prev story

Whitepapers

Gartner critical capabilities for enterprise endpoint backup
Learn why inSync received the highest overall rating from Druva and is the top choice for the mobile workforce.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Consolidation: The Foundation for IT Business Transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.