“So anybody who thinks they want to be in the intellectual property innovation business needs to ask, ‘How do I differentiate myself from this [open source] thing?’ It has to be through innovative work and through integrated innovation. The non-commercial world doesn’t move that fast. Linux is a clone of UNIX. Linux hasn’t blazed the trail, new approaches to security, new approaches to program development. Even program development in the UNIX world, the sort of trail-blazing, is quite broadly being done by BEA and IBM and Sun and the Java crowd. […] But at the end of the day, it’s about innovation. It’s about competing. And it’s about building up enough of innovative intellectual property to have a good business.” Ballmer told Always-On.
Ballmer: Linux is not Innovating
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Microsoft doesn’t innovate, Linux is the pinacle of innovation. Sure it has some catching up to do, but don’t all relatively young projects?
Look where it counts, Ballmer.
What innovation has linux done?
Ballmer is right. “BEA and IBM and Sun and the Java crowd” and Microsoft do indeed come up with more innovation. Open source is not as focused and wastes too much effort creating different products for similar purposes.
haha, fooled you. Linux doesn’t innovate. It’s just a copy of unix.
Apache and its progeny, for example. IIS has been a lagging follower in this field from the beginning (in addition to being notoriously insecure in its various incarnations).
Regards,
Mark Wilson
“Linux is a clone of UNIX.”
Yeah, because Windows is sooo original. Lol.
The major innovation of OSS is the development model. OSS software’s distributed development model is so innovative, it has necessitated brand-new version control mechanisms like arch and bitkeeper.
Beyond that, its largely a matter of providing good implementations of existing ideas. No big company really innovates — even all the fancy vector-graphics stuff you see in OS X and Longhorn has been done at least twice before (NeWS, NeXT). All the new language features in C# have been done (and better) in academic languages. The new longhorn shell is just a take-off on existing projects like scsh (the scheme shell). Its all been done before. Established companies cannot afford to make major innovations. Its too dangerous. Instead, the best they can do is provide good implementations of existing ideas, and maybe make incremental improvements along the way.
PS> Related to its distribution methodology — the whole “package repository” model is pretty damn original. All your software available from one place, from a single UI? Now *that’s* innovation!
True. But neither does Windows.
So, there.
FOSS != non-commercial software. Steve knows this difference I am sure, but maintains it. I am certain that a lot of FOSS developers would be more than happy to make cash – hence Ximian (now owned by Novell), Novell, RedHat etc, and the proliferation of Linux distro companies (“stop reinventing the wheel” etc).
“new approaches to program development.”: Like it or not, FOSS does have an innovative method of software development, even if it has been done for longer than MS has been alive as a company (think: sendmail or its predecessor delivermail by Eric Allman).
“but on total cost-of-ownership through innovation.”: How does “innovation” reduce TCO? It’s a bad argument a bit like selling snake oil: “Buy this, it’s innovative which means lots of TCO goodness!”
“There is a hardcore community of people who don’t have a positive attitude towards Microsoft.”: Actually, I would say a large part of the worlds community feel that way after the last summer of worms, viruses and patches that don’t work, reboots, downtime, new licensing schemes, forced upgrades, vendor lock-in and so on. People are tired of having to be puppets whose strings are yanked at will by a large company that is very rich already.
“In the last year, at least by our own research, we’ve seen .NET pass Java in terms of new development projects and usage.”: I really do not see this. .NET is popular, no doubt, but Java has had so much mindshare and investment over the last few years that I cannot see .NET having overtaken it so quickly. I’m prepared to stand corrected IF (and only if) I can see some convincing research.
“The real competition in our business will be won and lost by who’s doing what kind of innovative work for their customers”: and there was me thinking it was more about ROI. Innovation might be fine, but as an end in itself it is facile. Innovation needs to be good for the customer, not just as its own argument. Take Microsoft Bob – something that is often thought of as MS innovation: how on earth did that *ever* benefit any business? According the Steve’s argument, it is a good thing of itself, and any business should welcome it, regardless of the damage it does because it’s “innovative”.
Innovation is fine, but it has its place: Most businesses just want stuff that works, software that can be run and left running with no fuss or nonsense. Something that people feel they can trust, not cutting edge, “hey, we’ve got something that means you have to rettrain your staff! AGAIN! But you’ll love the sexy graphics on it, so sign up! And don’t worry if it breaks or knackers your systems because it’s a security nightmare – it’s innovative!”
I liked the “McNamee: And turn it into BS, is that what?” bit. Made me laugh!
The most irritating thing about this innovation bullshit is that the majority of users have no idea about the real source of this innovation. They’ve never heard of NeWS or NeXT, so they think that Microsoft has made this great new technology. Even a lot of supposedly techy people fall prey to this marketing bullshit.
Microsoft has stolen far more intellectual property than they’ve ever “innovated”.
Microsoft is in court nearly continuously because of their penchant for thieving the IP of other companies.
Sooner or later this is going to catch up to Microsoft.
Well it looks a lot different than its origins.
———
Linux is the best damn clone that I have seen.
Man what were they thinking with freetype and xft, they must stop this, it must be a clone. They must stop all the new X extension, it must be a clone. They must stop KDE/GNOME development. They must stop rewriting code in the kernel.
Why does Ballmer think this clone was created, to destroy MS, I don’t think so, it is to provide a free UNIX alternative, simple as that.
I just wish programs launch quicker on sub 500Mhz machines.
Two quotes from Ballmer.
“I look at Linux and see a competitor, and I think we can offer better value than that competitor as long as we’re pushing the innovation front, because the competitor is not innovating.”
“We can beat it on security if we’re willing to innovate.”
Seems like he is accusing linux of not being innovative and then admiting that MS themselves aren’t innovative.
So Microsoft is in the “intellectual property innovation business?” Well perhaps that explains their products.
“The non-commercial world doesn’t move that fast,” except for Apache which is kicking IIS from one end of the internet to the other.
“We can beat it(Linux) on security if we’re willing to innovate.” So innovate is now defined as FUDDING a product out of the market (http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/11/HNmsassault_1.html)?
I wonder who Ballmer expects will fall for this prattle? Certainly not anyone in Europe or Asia.
Okay:
delivermail (followed by sendmail) which allowed people to send email across different networks. Arguably one of the main driving forces behind the internet (as opposed to a series of unconnected LAN’s).
Mosaic: the first graphical web browser
The NCSA server (upon which Apache was based). The granddaddy of them all (or was it?)
GCC: said to have been the first truly cross platform C++ compiler
To those who say Linux sucks because it doesn’t innovate (please note that Ballmer was talking about open source, not Linux in particular: it shows where your biases are). Why are you slagging off a phenomena that forces proprietary companies to a) improve their software quality, and b) lower their prices? It gives the consumer a better deal and if you don’t want to play, you can mess around with the FOSS versions as long as you feel they don’t “suck” enough (but remember a lot of FOSS is still under development – I don’t expect the recent alpha Longhorn release to be perfect because it’s still under development, so why should FOSS have to be better?).
If linux isnt:
-a threat
-innovative
-secure
-stable
-cheap
-etc
Why is MS spending so much time bashing it?
It’s just like John Carmack says. :p id Software can’t innovate because they are set to do 3D shooters. That’s what people expect from them and that’s what all their artists and coders can do best. So he is expecting innovative games to come from smaller, independent vendors and the same is true for other software.
Neither Microsoft nor Apple nor “Linux” are a source of huge software innovation (maybe Apple a bit more). They don’t experiment much and take the elements that work well and combine them into one well working product. Most innovative software comes from small companies which then get buyed or the software licensed. The same is happening in the Open Source world. Yes, mainstream Linux isn’t innovative. It’s mostly just another Windows clone or a Mac clone or a Unix clone, however you look at it. But there are a plethora of projects that are NOT in the mainstream, which ARE innovative. Sometimes ideas of those projects get incorporated into the mainstream, most often not. The big projects don’t really take much risks, the small projects do. That’s how it should be and Free Software makes it very very easy because all the code is there to look at and everything can be merged without buying, licensing or re-inventing the wheel.
Linux has been the platform for a lot of development to take place, and they have created two desktop environments and their own open source GUI library (GTK+). The Linux kernel is a huge development and innovation, it’s what drives the open source community.
A vendor creates a market around an idea and they compete using their resources. Microsoft has huge resources and it often does not innovate but instead it is opportunistic. As soon as it sees a successful idea being implemented, than it takes, steals, or murders, for control of that idea that Balmer calls innovation.
It’s the open source projects job to promote the ideas but not to form a market out of them. That is the genre of a vendor, especially vendors who want to build their business and product line based on the Linux platform. At this time the Linux vendors are saying that they need more and better infrastructure, more development to take place, and more participation.
To think of a monopoly as innovating the IT industry is dangerous. The monopoly is using it’s resources in order to maintain control of the market, to prevent competition to succeed based on their innovation …although even when Microsoft implements an idea it is unique because the ideas incorporate a strategy “such as integration”. Right now Microsoft is searching for more ideas to hijack, and as soon as one of them looks like it might be successful, it will be swallowed up. If Linux went belly up and IBM and SUN follwed than Microsoft would be dissolved, and Microsoft can also be come dissolved if they try to influence horizontal industries using their monopoly power.
What Linux should do is to develop tools that make working with the source code more productive. If Linux concentrates on the source code than Microsoft can not be an opportunist because they are closed source, their goal is to control the factors of production.
In the 1995 when MS released Win 95 it barely copied ideas from other OSes like the one running on Amiga.
Back then Linux was close to nothing when it comes to graphical UI. Today — 8 years later — XP is just Win 95 with face-lifting. And Linux has easily managed to catch up with that. I am talking about graphical UIs. On all other fields Microsoft did not really invent any thing that would be worth mentioning. For example IE (based on mosaic) was just an answer to Netscape Navigator. Sure IE got better than NN. But look how much money was thrown at it (straight from MS customers wallets) !
and Apple follows to make it successful (like videoconferencing and mp3 players)
IBM has invented almost everything you use in a computer. Remote Desktop in Windows is IBM. Samba/CIFS is IBM. I was amazed to find how much of IBM is everywhere.
http://www.macboy.com/cartoons/ballmer/ and
http://www-3.ibm.com/e-business/doc/content/lp/prodigy.html?P_Site=…
😀
>>Sure IE got better than NN. But look how much money was thrown at it (straight from MS customers wallets) !
IE being better that netscape or other projects based on it’s codebase is extremely arguable, and mostly arguable in the innovation department. Hey MS, you getting around to that tabbed browsing yet? popup blocking? download manager? Oh you’re innovating that up right now? Thought so.
I was shocked that the Longhorn community called this innovation … seeing as how libglade and glade has been around for eons. Just ONE example.
repackaging is NOT innovation. WinFS isn’t innovation. It’s implementation. that’s all.
windows preys on the fact that the average Windows user has never seen these things before. they just reimplement, and its innovation ON the win32 FOR the win32.
Microsoft Sued Over Plug-In Infringement
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3_63491
Microsoft sued over Web movie technology
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/entertainment/movies/6889740.h…
Microsoft Sued For Copyright Infringement
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=988398494
I could go on but the hypocrisy is just too overwhelming IHMO.
Linux, like other OSS implementations, is designed and implemented by ANYBODY willing to make free software. This means, ANYBODY, and this ANYBODY is people from all over the world, from different cultural backgrounds, with different education, from innumerable companies and from every country in the world.
Saying that Linux, or OSS, is not innovative, means that Human Race is not innovative. Ballmer really has no idea what he actually uttered, or he just wants to spread ill will.
He is starting to sound like a SUN executive!
Linux is a lot like PC hardware was a few years back. It was different because it was developed by many different vendors. Remember how BAD PC hardware used to be. IRQ conflicts et cetra. Over time it won out beause of the huge amount of R&D. Apple lost because of the hardware model. MS has been able to sit on top of this PC hardware. It was the open hardware model that led to MS success.
Linux (BSD, OSX) might win out for the same reasons. We have a open hardware model now joined with an open software model. It may not be the best, or integrated well but over time it might just win out.
It really is MS verses the *NIX world. They are in the position that Apple has had with their hardware. Even if Windows were superior, it might loose out anyway.
MS spends a lot effort to fight software pirates – those $1 winxp, office CDs at Asian street corners. Why ?
Innovative doesn’t have to be something original, it could also means something better or more valuable than the original.
Ford Model T wasn’t the first automobile, however, it is the first that ordinary people could afford and operate without too much of tweaking.
The same could be said for the following:
(They may not be originated from MS, but the monopoly at least offered the platform that let these things reached 97%, if not 100%, of PC desktops)
True Type fonts – an Apple original and made popular by win31?
PnP, PCI database – Win95 ?
Winmodem, GDI printer – win31/win95
Unicode – practical applications, IE3, Win2k/winxp
Without Windows, guys would probably tweak VT100 escape sequences on a $1500 PC runing *nix in an xterm or piping PCL to a $1000 LaserJet generated by Ghostscript.
I think Ballmer is right but he is probably the last person in the world that should say this.
<<<Without Windows, guys would probably tweak VT100 escape sequences on a $1500 PC runing *nix in an xterm or piping PCL to a $1000 LaserJet generated by Ghostscript.>>>
Nope. We’d all be running Apple and Commodore computers. Don’t be so dramatic.
Yeah, Microsoft does do some stuff to make it innovative, take .NET for example, much better to code with that old stuff. But they do it cost of speed and performance, to run .NET you have to have a better machine. And Microsoft always goes about that their new release is faster, but also you need a better and faster PC to run their OS.
My 2c
and looks bad without IE font pack
except they all cost much higher than a low end WinTel
Just before I go on, how is Linux a clone of UNIX? what UNIX is it Linux trying to clone? as far as I see, the only thing GNU/Linux are doing is implementing the freely available standards that exist; UNIX 98, POSIX, Unicode, C99, ANSI C++ and so forth. How is that any different to Microsoft implementing (and very poorly at that) the POSIX api on Windows?
This is your typical technology CEO, all spin and no reality. All “innovation” and no reality check. The reality is, customers don’t care about innovation, what they care about is software that targets their requires, that solves their problems. Microsoft is doing what the dot coms did, try and create a demand for something to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Microsoft is yet another company who just doesn’t get it and unfortunately there is a legion of clueless CEO’s running behind them deciding that they would rather waste shareholders funds on overhyped technologies rather than taking the prudent measure by look at their problem and actually looking at what is out there.
The one question I wanted to know why it wasn’t asked is, “If one decides to use .NET over Java, aren’t they essentially locking themselves into the Windows platform? wouldn’t that give you the upper hand in terms of future license negotiations?”. That is the problem with these technology people, not willing to ask the hard hitting questions and instead, hide behind a vail “giddiness”.
The fact remains, Microsoft doesn’t know how to attach it. Microsoft is a pure software company, however, SUN is realising that their strength is the ability to leverage their software, hardware and services assets to deliver and end to end solution, same situation for IBM. Microsoft will have to make a decision to where they will go from here. Will they lower their prices? buy out a hardware company and become a hybrid but risk a back lash from either the DOJ or a close partner? expand their services wing and end up isolating their partners?
Microsoft is in a much worst position than they make out today. They may think that they can continue to grow but in the future, people will be asking for a complete package which can be integrated into their existing infrastructure without the huge overheads that exist today. Microsoft doesn’t get it, people don’t want to worry about the details, they just want things to get working out of the box, that is where the growth area is; the holistic approach not the smorgasbord approach we see today.
Actually we’d still run on open platforms thanks to the guys at IBM but we’d be using BeOS or some other OS instead. It’s sad to see that people think they actually need MS. The fact is that MS needs it’s costumer base more so then the customer needs them. If MS were to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow taking along it’s product line with it I am sure others would quickly step up to fill the void. Would it take a some time to fill that void ? Yes but it would be filled none the less by other software and OS companies running on top of Linux, BeOS, etc…
All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Last, it is accepted as being self-evident. (Schopenhaeur)
I have no idea what it will be like when the dust settles. But it’s certainly better for the average end consumer of software / OS when there’s this much competition (unix, linux, freebsd, osx, xp, etc).
I think the article was pretty good, I understand his viewpoints and agree with most of them. At least MS has applications, functionality and has a road map for the future. On the other hand linux is trying to copy Windows and not doing a very good job. If you don’t like Windows then run something else, simple as that….
Say, is Enlightenment innovating? I for one think so, but a lot of people have rather weird ideas of how to use “innovating”. Might be the language barrier.
I woulkd like to see Microsoft inovate some compatability between Linux and there products.
Like DNS, IPSEC, When creating a visio drawing save it as a html and want to use it with apache and then really show me my drawing…. instead off nothing that sort of stuff.
can’t we just get along with each other…..
Why is it that my non innovating stuf all works well with each other *BSD, UNIX, Linux like vpn and so on, but my Microsoft product’s do not.
Why do i need to do a Regedit on Win XP (Sign or Seal) to use XP with Samba, is that innovating or just make products as hard as possible to coorperate.
Please Mr Ballmer work on that, use the standards do not misuse them!
“But it’s certainly better for the average end consumer of software / OS when there’s this much competition (unix, linux, freebsd, osx, xp, etc).”
It is true – but OSS could do a better job than its current state – two desktops, multiple API for sound, printing, etc. That was the reason why Unix couldn’t stand a fight on desktop a decade ago.
The idea that everyone could contribute to an OSS project simply doesn’t fly in real world – image 1 million willing and able guys try to improve say XFree86, the situation would simply lead to an unmanageable chaos.
i think Steve Ballmer is trying to create the impression that Microsoft, because it “innovates,” is cool. Sort of like what Apple and the Mac fans used before as the cool factor compared to the DOS/Windows of the early 90s.
the question here is: does Microsoft really innovate? they’re just rehashing old ideas and packaging them up as new
besides, what does being “cool” get you anyway?
this is the least inovative story ive seen on here
3 thumbs down
a slag fest is not a story
Off hand i can think of these examples
Enlightenment,
Fresco’s windowing system (all that rotating windows and stuff with vector graphics Heck isn’t longhorn copying these ?)
Mozilla’s tab browsing (unless some other browser had it first if i am mistaken sorry )
Mozilla mail with inbuilt bayesian filtering
Someone please correct me if there were other technologies that had the above features.
Besides OSS seems to have one thing MS never has reliability
Steve Ballmer is in a flat spin at some horrendous velocity, and can no longer distinguish between his rectum and his nasoropharyngeal cavity.
One thing I learnt while digging through a pile of stuff a few years ago on human and dinosaur evolution, is that in nature, there may be several different versions of how to do a particular task, in the form of dentition, say.
Then there’ll come a change in its surroundings, environment, whatever, and something will disappear that justified that feature, and the creatures with those features will quietly die out. Eg, Anthropithecus Boisei with its huge jaws for grinding plant material.
I see the same thing going on in the Free/Libre Open Source Software community. You have kde and GNOME, both competitors in the desktop environment. To get ahead, either one has to have more and better features, more stability, etc, than the other one. But they are so evenly matched at this stage, that they move forward in lockstep.
The Microsoft Windows monolith, on the other hand, eradicates competitors, thus wiping out the incentive to innovate. It’s not part of an ecosystem, however much it may try to say it is – it is more of an ecological disaster – and the speed at which ILoveYou, soBig, and Blaster moved, is perfectly understandable to anyone who’s taken the time to understand natural disease patterns.
As I said above, Steve Ballmer is in a flat spin, and he can’t help it if he’s talking BS – he can no longer tell the difference – at the speed he’s spinning – between his nether portions and his face.
is that it doesnt need a marketing department to survive. it doesnt need one company either. everyone can get the source and use it. so theoretically its product life cycle is tenfold larger than the one of windows.
innovation is a buzzword when microsoft uses it. fact is they steal something from apple, rename it (musicstore for example) and hire some slaves to throw out press releases for some pretty ms-centric magazines so they can claim innovation.
they just want to hide the fact that their server products are far inferior to the flexibility and power of open source software.
#2
i totally agree.
Linux doesn’t innovate it clones and clones and clones.
This doesn’t count for all open source stuff though and like someone mentioned, Apache is a perfect example, but Apache hardly has anything to do with Linux, that’s just what some advocates wants to say to make things look good.
Linux is and will allways be a couple of steps behind…
its ballmers job to spread fud about linux – so who cares?
i’ll use linux for now and ever. if for some people its not good enough. well use windows. use innovative drm technologies. use innovative product activations. please go and stay in your world of consumer software, ie6 worms and trojaned binaries.
but one thing you see on osnews. obviously so many people are _dependant_ from windows based software that they dont dare to say anything bad about it.
btw. microsoft stole the taskbar grouping in 2000/xp from whom? wasnt it kde?
KDE looks like Windows. Evolution is a clone of MS Outlook. gconf-editor is a lot like regedit.
Who was the innovative one again?
btw. microsoft stole the taskbar grouping in 2000/xp from whom? wasnt it kde?
It was from BeOS.
the reason why those open source software “ape” their MS counterparts is because they try to bridge the gap from someone coming from Windows to open source software. so that one person who is adjusting from the former system to the new (open source) system won’t have much trouble navigating the thing.
Well it seems to me that he is first accusing linux of not being innovative, then admitting that MS themselves do not innovate and imply that linux innovates!
Without Windows, I’d probably be happily running OS/2 on my home desktop and using Linux as a server.
Oh wait … That’s what I’m doing! 🙂
Windows didn’t make the Intel platform popular, and it wasn’t the only software platform that could have made the x86 user friendly. PC/GEOS, GEM, DV/X, OS/2, and others could have done the same thing.
The influence Microsoft’s products have had is largely due to their overwhelming marketshare, not due to any “innovative” features present in those products.
First you borrow a TCP/IP stack which is possible because of the BSDL, then years later you use terms like ”Linux” (which is simply only a kernel) and ”open-source” (which is a lot more than GPLed software, Free Software, and even includes BSDL which you DO NOT hate because you can use it). Where’s the nuance?
How the hell can a company who can’t stand 1 bit of competition, and kill off competition (i take it examples aren’t needed? BeOS, Google, RAV Antivirus, VirtualPC and more on the Office and Graphics market), claim such in a believable manner. Extend & Embrace, killing standards, Microsoft does it.
Read here about what Microsoft has really ”innovated”:
http://www.nimh.org/microsoft/
[Answer: nothing]
See also the URL it links to ”Why i hate Microsoft” it contains a long, and acaict a quite accurate analysis on Microsoft. Or, you can see the Halloween documents:
http://opensource.org/halloween/
“Mozilla’s tab browsing (unless some other browser had it first if i am mistaken sorry )”
Opera had something similair earlier, it’s called MDI. However, it is not the very same as tabbed browsing. I agree Enlightenment is innovative. I’d argue WINE is innovative too. The GPL is imo innovative too as license and Free software/Open source as movement. Overal it’s a hard discussion because just naming something isn’t an argument…
He’s just a troll. If one would post this on a serious forum, it would be modded down. Now go away, troll.
I sincerely hope that Mr. Ballmer does’nt believe what he is saying, otherwise the desktop monopolist and desperately aspairering _to be what ever else there is monopolist_, is suffering serious reality distortion. But on the other hand, Microsoft has a tremendous responsibility, because of it’s market domination, so if he does’nt believe in what is saying, he’s just simply manipulating or better misuing Microsofts power …. (…again….) … is this legal?
Microsoft has not innovated much, but mostly ripped off of innovations of others and (mis) used their power to bully the innovators out of the market:
GUI – the innovators where everywhere else, but not in Microsoft.
OS – the micro kernel technologie was invented and explored elsewere.
Also the micro kernal technologie leveraged off experience of other OS approaches. Also: Large parts of the OS code seem to be cloning VMS.
Security – again the innovations where elsewhere: Unix, Java and prominently opensource with for example OpenBSD etc.
Communication: LAN, RLA others where first. Microsoft even almost _forgot_ about TCP/IP, come late and made it then strategic, after their properietary approach failed.
Internet: Maybe the _opensource_ innovention. Here Microsoft was terribly late. The innvoators on the client side, where all open source: mosaic, netscape etc. The innovators on the server side where also many opensource: webservers, dns etc. Eventually Microsoft woke up in a shock realizing the world is passing by, scrambled and muscled all others out.
Scripting: Ripp-off of long years of experience of the so much _hated_ unix (Shell, perl etc.). Now do you think their shell scripting is innovative?
Languages: All Microsofts languages (VB, C# ) leverage from the experience of others . In case of C# = Java + C++ plus the experience of the community.
IDE’s: Here again before Microsoft even thought it necessary to be _nice_ to the developers, there were great development enviroments out there. Delphi ( – the guy switched sides), NextStep etc. etc. Even now real innovation in this area is not coming from Microsoft, but from opensource with the ECLIPSE Project.
OO Frameworks: Microsoft even riddled OO not long ago (Gates et al) and now it is the strategic thing of Longhorn. Longhorn is mostly leverageing on experience, which has been made by other long long ago. There are alot of different OO Frameworks and Libraries, some very prominent examples are open source, for example a lesser kwown: ACE. The OO Communcation has always been a very open and communicative community. The innovation, knowlegde and experience again has been made elsewhere , not in Microsoft.
Component Technologie: Mostly the same as above. Component mostly grew out of experience with OO Frameworks and the DLL technology.
Standards: Software innovation lives and leverages from standards, for most examples: HTML, XML etc. Again here Microsoft has’nt contributed much, except some
Software: Word processors, Desktop Databases, Application Suites all has been innovated elsewhere
etc. etc.
So i really have to ask Mr. Ballmer again, what are you talking about? am i to take you serious?
But that is not the point, what really matters:
Innovation is only possible were there is choice. Is Mr. Ballmer advocating choice? .
Also real innovation comes mostly not from commercial companies, but from the sharing of knowlegde and leveraging off shared experience. One of the great way’s to do this is and has always been is opening up your source code…..
I didn’t care enough to actually waste my time reading all of Ballmer’s BS, but the last few sentances caught my attention…
1) But at the end of the day, it’s about innovation.
2) It’s about competing.
3) And it’s about building up enough of innovative intellectual property to have a good business.
A1) What’s about innovation? This is such a vague sentance. Define innovation. Define “what”.
A2) IIRC Linux was not created in order to compete with anything or anyone. It was created as a student project in OS coding and design. Somehow, this student project needs to compete??? It was created in an academic/hobby setting and will never die because people always want to continue using it in that setting, whether or not it is used by the rest of the planet on the desktop. OK, always is pretty strong, but its going to last just as long as any other system, if not longer.
A3) Again, Linux wasn’t created with business in mind. Whatever “it” is, why must “it” be about innovating for the sake of business. This is typical capitalist hogwash. Why not innovate for the sake of humanity? Whatever innovations OSS makes are true contributions to the good of humanity. Whatever innovations closed source software makes are only shells of contributions to humanity because they lack substance and are only defined by an idea. This may not always be a big deal, such as user interface innovations (tabbed browsing). But innovations in system internals are lost to humanity if they are wrapped up in closed source software such that not everyone can learn from them.
We can backup DVDs (the DeCSS author was trying to build a Linux DVD player).
All cars have 4 wheels, some are reliable, some aren’t, it isn’t always a question if innovation. M$ is basically an aggregator of ideas bought or borrowed from somewhere else. M$ most important strategic advantage is in their ability to take over hardware functions with software thus lowering hardware system costs, while at the same time pushing Moore’s law forward. This is the area where linux will most likely lose out in the end. In the mean time, it seems that alot of people want to get the internet thing going, and don’t want to wait around for a bunch of Ivy League Thomas Edison (FUD Tesla) types to get their collective acts together.
Yeah, the GNU HURD is innovating constantly for how many years now? As far as Linux goes, it’s at best evolution but not revolution.
Innovation is actually a very subjective definition.
PaX contains some true innovations. I think the OpenBSD team has done quite a few innovations on the security side, like in OpenSSH (not SSH itself), but W^X was later than PaX (though they’re not the very same). NetBSD: runs on how many? 40+ platforms?
What about MPlayer? It plays about all known codecs in one program.
IE being better that netscape or other projects based on it’s codebase is extremely arguable, and mostly arguable in the innovation department. Hey MS, you getting around to that tabbed browsing yet? popup blocking? download manager? Oh you’re innovating that up right now? Thought so.
<p>You seem to be forgetting the 3-odd year gap in between IE beating Netscape and *Mozilla* then becoming better than IE. Netscape != Mozilla.
<p>IE for MacOS had a download manager as well. Personally, I hate the things.
Right. Linux doesn’t innovate, but clones Unix.
It also tries to improve performance, scalability and stability as compared to other Unices.
Anyway, cloning Unix is much better than writing a mediocre OS like Windows, cf. ESR: The Art of Unix Programming, or just take a look at the Windows and Unix APIs.
And improving an OS that hasn’t yet met an equal enemy (technically) in 30 years sounds really great to me.
Marketing is something else, and has nothing to do with “innovation”.
“Apache and its progeny, for example. IIS has been a lagging follower in this field from the beginning (in addition to being notoriously insecure in its various incarnations).”
Very true. I was at a seminar/presentation thing about .NET before it came out and the man from MS said that they were taking some of the ideas from Apache (forking child processes and killing parents periodically to prevent memory bloat being the one that sticks in my mind) into IIS.
To the topic in general, I agree that by and large innovation (at a technical level) is not done by Microsoft (they buy ideas in) or Linux (it tries to reimplement freely, openly and in a better more accountable way with some implementation improvement) but really happens by the smaller commercial players. Or the less retail focused players. We’re all using WIMP GUIs thanks for Xerox PARC for instance. Not Microsoft or Apple (even though Apple created the first retail implementation of the idea).
Now if you want to talk of innovative business practices you can’t get much more innovative than the GPL. Microsoft don’t really have “innovative” there either for my mind. That doesn’t mean that MS isn’t a fabulous marketing organisation. I believe they have the best and most aggressive salesmen on the planet (look at the product they’re selling and have successfully sold for years…) but that’s about it.
that’s just wonderful…so let me for a second entertain the idea that microsoft is innovative.
let’s say it’s true.
now what? they are also the predominant player. you can’t swing a dead cat with out hitting someone who’s not already peddling their wares or providing support for existing installations.
what does that mean for me, as an entrepreneur?
there are 1000 micromonkeys along side of me trying to resell or service the same shit.
your hourly tends to take a horrible dive in that environment.
i’ll leave it to the other 999 (and growing exponentially).
enjoy.
As many linux distributors would say – “it is more important to release a stable version of linux, than a bleeding edge version”.
As Microsoft focuses on “innovation” only, it is easy to see how this philosophy opens the door for the vulernabilities and instabilities that are so common place now that everyone yawns when they here the new one.
Open source is so non-innovative that Microsoft incoporated OpenBSD’s code into their new Unix Services product for Windows that is supposed to help Unix administators with their migration to Windows…
Yeah, whatever monkey-boy….
“The most irritating thing about this innovation bullshit is that the majority of users have no idea about the real source of this innovation. They’ve never heard of NeWS or NeXT, so they think that Microsoft has made this great new technology. Even a lot of supposedly techy people fall prey to this marketing bullshit.”
The people who get conned by that Longhorn crap are never going to know that that dodgy filesystem is a really shit implementation of orthogonal persistence. BeOS had a database inside their FS, it just wasn’t SQL. Tunes, Choices, Spring, Apertos, etc. all had REAL orthogonal persistence that worked (no database here either).
People need to know about these things, but they never will because M$ will just say “hey, look at this cool new invention we created!” the consumers will say “oooh” and then M$ will whack a software patent on it.
Luke.
It’s rather funny to see Ballmer pointing fingers toward Linux developers. If memory serves me well, Microsoft has been found guilty on numerous occasions of <cough> stealing other people intellectual property. They are so respectfull of the law that when ordered to pay, they stall the judiciary process, hoping the plaintiff will either die (Kendall) or go broke. Next time, drug dealers are going to call us names.
xerox created the mouse driven gui
apple stole it
ms stole from apple
linux/bsd/etc are bad ms clones
apple innovates innovatates hardware enclosures
ms innovates nothing
linux innovates nothing
that’s the way it is, like it or not
Linux = education, research, hobbists, dedicated servers, embedded.
Windows = Get my work done.
McNamee: But most folks developing systems that live outside a firewall still chooses J2EE instead of .NET, .NET is only suitable for light client/server models. How do you respond to that?
Ballmer: Doesn’t resonate with anything I’ve seen in the marketplace. They’re not even within 100 miles of Redmond. They are not in any place. The J2EE camp hold no place in the distributed systems market. This is an illusion … they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.”
McNamee: Pepole are choosing J2EE instead of .NET just because .NET is a MS-platform.
Ballmer: I actually don’t find that. In our research and with customers, that’s not mostly what I see. Actually, the J2EE camp is committing suicide outside the walls of Redmond right now.
It really hurts when it hits so close to home. I have been saying the same thing for years, people are always saying Microsoft doesn’t innovate and if I take that to be true, it means Linux always following right behind Microsoft’s trends doesn’t innovate either.
By Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net) – Posted on 2003-11-13 07:55:36
except they all cost much higher than a low end WinTel
Idiotic. Amiga hardware was faster, cheaper, and more powerful than the PCs of the time, so it stands to reason they’d have at least kept up, if not continued the trend.
Oh, and have you ever paid for a Windows license? Shoots any argument about cost comparisons down right there.
Moron.
is that it lets you actually take control of your system, rather than locking you in to what the OS manufacturer wants you to do. It also doesn’t restrict where and how many times you can install it, or what features you want on or off, or what “bundled” products you want to use with it.
Oh, and it also innovates by not breaking all your stuff every year so that you have to upgrade.
As for it ripping off Windows, well, as people with intellectual capabilities beyond a fruit fly have already pointed out, Xerox Parc created all that, and they just stole it (though they really stole it second-hand, stealing it from Apple instead).
The windowing environment is the de facto standard now, so everybody who wants to compete in the consumer OS marketspace has to have one. And of course Linux is appropriating current elements because they want people to have an easier time transistioning to it.
But never you fear. The innovations continue under the hood, and once enough people are weaned off the Windows habit, you’ll see some real innovation on the Linux front end too.
This ongoing fight is very boring… who is wrong, who is right, who is innovative, who is not…
Stop talking and try to innovate for yourselves. Who cares if MS or Linux is innovative… what really matters to all of us is to get the best product at the best price.
That’s It.
“xerox created the mouse driven gui”
Yeah, and…
“apple stole it”
Apple saw it, paid money to use it, and brought it to the public
“ms stole from apple”
and?
“linux/bsd/etc are bad ms clones”
– Linux, very adequate Unix variation that no one has created a ‘blow me outta my seat” GUI
– BSD et al are the UNIX answer to the Linux alternative
“apple innovates innovatates hardware enclosures”
yes and no… their Industrial Design and RUI (Real User Interface) mostly are innovative (check out iPod). Apple does recognize other sources of innovation. If they (Stevie) are convinced that the Apple User will benefit, they implement it in the OS. Not all decisions can be amicable with all…
“ms innovates nothing”
Well, they’re driven by a business model to encompass all… I guess, sorta like the Borg… and since we’re all ripping them off, not giving them all the money they so richly deserve for repackaging et al… They’re using that dmmn Activation stuff… (‘nother topic, sorry)
“linux innovates nothing”
Linux has pushed the envelope for all the OSs… This is a good, positive motion innovation. Without the push from Linux, OS X (mac) would not be where it is… the proper UI for a *nix. Yup, all those Linux distros can’t seem to get what apple has done… Hey, that’s okay… it raises the bar for Linux…
Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if we just all used OS X & Linux…
Jb
(sorry, I am a bit of a Mac Zealot). I do work in Win & Mac OS environs… and soon I will attempt to install a distro of Linux on an ol’Pentium150 to learn a bit. I know curiousity killed the cat, but I do prefer dogs.
“xerox created the mouse driven gui”
Yeah, and…
“apple stole it”
Apple saw it, paid money to use it, and brought it to the public
“ms stole from apple”
and?
“linux/bsd/etc are bad ms clones”
– Linux, very adequate Unix variation that no one has created a ‘blow me outta my seat” GUI
– BSD et al are the UNIX answer to the Linux alternative
“apple innovates innovatates hardware enclosures”
yes and no… their Industrial Design and RUI (Real User Interface) mostly are innovative (check out iPod). Apple does recognize other sources of innovation. If they (Stevie) are convinced that the Apple User will benefit, they implement it in the OS. Not all decisions can be amicable with all…
“ms innovates nothing”
Well, they’re driven by a business model to encompass all… I guess, sorta like the Borg… and since we’re all ripping them off, not giving them all the money they so richly deserve for repackaging et al… They’re using that dmmn Activation stuff… (‘nother topic, sorry)
“linux innovates nothing”
Linux has pushed the envelope for all the OSs… This is a good, positive motion innovation. Without the push from Linux, OS X (mac) would not be where it is… the proper UI for a *nix. Yup, all those Linux distros can’t seem to get what apple has done… Hey, that’s okay… it raises the bar for Linux…
Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if we just all used OS X & Linux…
Jb
(sorry, I am a bit of a Mac Zealot). I do work in Win & Mac OS environs… and soon I will attempt to install a distro of Linux on an ol’Pentium150 to learn a bit. I know curiousity killed the cat, but I do prefer dogs.
Ballmer says:
“There is a hardcore community of people who don’t have a positive attitude towards Microsoft. It’s a very small community—vocal, but very small.”
For some reason I just don’t believe it is all that small. After all they are in major antitrust suits (several) and companies as well as individuals are seriously considering competing products.
Yes it’s true Linux isn’t innovative, but it doesn’t try to be. Microsoft says that their doing all this innovation, when they really aren’t.
ms does not innovate and neither do any big companies, as much has been mentioned.
large corporations bring up memories of a an x-files episode. Its the one where moulder and scully go down south to investigate murders that end up being committed by a family that is deformed from generations of inbreeding.
In a similar fashion large corporations will/have become “inbred” so to speak without introducing new material into their proverbial gene pool. Acquisitions is the popular to do so. the problem with MS is that they have killed off so many company’s that the gene pool is pretty limited these days and that (along with a refusal to accept risk and OSS) will eventually kill MS along with a lot of other big companies (maybe intel, nokia, ericsson, etc.).
Just before I go on, how is Linux a clone of UNIX?
Say what ? How is Linux *not* a clone of unix ?
what UNIX is it Linux trying to clone?
Mostly System V (the heathens). Although they also give a nod to BSD.
As far as I see, the only thing GNU/Linux are doing is implementing the freely available standards that exist; UNIX 98, POSIX, Unicode, C99, ANSI C++ and so forth.
With the *objective* of creating a Free unix clone. That’s the major drive behind Linux development – a non-proprietry unix.
How is that any different to Microsoft implementing (and very poorly at that) the POSIX api on Windows?
Because the linux community is labouring to implement those standard with the objective of creating a unix clone. Microsoft threw in POSIX solely as a compatibility lure to get people *away* from unix.
And improving an OS that hasn’t yet met an equal enemy (technically) in 30 years sounds really great to me.
Unix has met it’s technical match numerous times. There’s no shortage of OSes that are _technically_ superior to unix. Technical merits are far from the only (or even main) thing that determines success.
I see the point of Ballmer when he talks about lack of innovation of open source movement. The main programs that anyone use from linux (are clones or parts of another operating systems)
That linux is not a linux clone? it isn’t, but the main gnu core (GNU not Unix) it is. Just use CLI and tell me if ps, tar, ls, cp, the scripting, X, are not ‘direct clones of unix’.
want to see the difference: just type ps, tar, gzip or ls in solaris, aix, sco and linux, and what do you see?
practically the same.
But in linux is better.
But that is about usability, because the open source movement actually do some innovation: apache, emacs (in this time), tabbed browsing. The problem is that most innovation is not used from people part because people always try to do the things of the same way and part because innovation is not always usable by everyone. Just see things like 3dwm.
That is innovation. And that is open source, but nobody uses , and I don’t like it too much by the way…
Once an article starts off like that, is there really any reason to go on reading? Does he ever say anything of value, anything that’s not FUD or ridiculous PR? I mean, at least Gates knows something about computers, has actually written a program (way back in the day). What has Steve ever done? Does the guy even know how a PC works?
Microsoft needs a better “point person” – someone infinitely more cuddly and can stay “on message.” To Linux heads – the future is very bright with Ballmer spouting off such nonsense. In most places Linux is a tiny blip on the radar sceen, until Ballmer puts his foot into his mouth up to his knee. Then the blip grows bigger with people thinking “wonder what the big deal is with the Linux thing”.
Not innovating huh, Ballmer? Since Windows itself was stolen from Apple with a legal maneuver you might think twice about throwing around accusations.
Note to Billy G: the former Iraqi Information Minister is free and can definitely stay on message with a calm tone. Maybe the new “point person” you’re looking for?
Look, I don’t have the greatest liking for Mr. Ballmer, like Gates, he’s an arrogant dork. But at the same time he’s right about linux, and has really hit the nail on the head. I look at Linux and I see nothing but a struggle to keep up with technology, constant infighting on the smallest things, and more than anything else, a desire to be as “great” as its big brother. The result — a system that, besides a few modern day ideas, is a replica of technology from 30 years ago.
I saw mention of KDE/Gnome being innovative, but at the end of the day, they too are in the same struggle as linux, not trying to innovate, but simply providing similiar functionality to Windows, however no where near as polished. (Quiet, you know its true.)
New ground is where you have to go, an earlier post suggested that big companies don’t innovate, because it’s too risky. This is an instant strength of the current development methods of Linux, however it continues to struggle with its ideologies, its competition, and what seems to be the golden egg — the ability to be on the desktop.
Linux needs to shape up and realise reinventing the wheel is a pointless endeavour.
Really innovative systems often fail.
I am sure we can all think of more innovative organisations than Microsoft who have either failed, never caught on or run with tiny market shares.
The Apple NEWTON for example was ahead of its time.
Everytime I see one of these threads, I just have to laugh. The linux fanboys get like diehard Elvis fans=”Elvis is alive!”
Get real. The fact is, for better or worse, all open source OSes and software are based on a IBM/Windows paradigm. go to sourceforge/freshmeat, and what do you see:
“This project intends to be an open source version of (insert your favorite closed source program here)”
That’s not exactly innovation, at least, the definition according to Websters. Recreating windows programs or porting unix tools to linux is simply copying, nothing more, nothing less. It may be an admirable effort, but on the face of it, Ballmer is right.
True, there are some outposts of innovation in OSS, such as apache, but, (and I love to say this), Apache is not Linux! It may run on the linux kernel, but it runs on 2000/XP as well. For every Apache, there are thousands of copies of something else.
I would say that as much as Apache is innovative, what about directx? True, Microsoft has a history of taking other people’s ideas, and using them for their own “innovations”, but you can’t tell me that directx hasn’t changed gaming. Isn’t that innovation?
In my rather humble opinion Mr. Balmer has a point. Say all you want, but he’s quite correct.
I’m not saying the lack of innovation sucks or anything, I’m just saying that he has a point.
Of course the same could be said about microsoft, who’ve been copy/pasting ever since they were founded. Oh wait, the copy/paste *WAS* copy/pasted from someone else’s hard work. And oh wait, microsoft has of course been extremel innovative .. which is why after nearly 20 years their OS’s *STILL* can’t match the performance nor stability of the so-often-cloned UNIX. But wait .. surely their Internet Explorer was entirely their idea. Oh wait, netscape. Well then SURELY they came up with the TCP/IP idea .. which is why they copy/pasted it from BSD surely.
Need I go on?
So anybody who thinks they want to be in the intellectual property innovation business needs to ask, ‘How do I differentiate myself from this [open source] thing?’
Do they really? Anyone who has followed the 3D accelerated graphic card revolution knows that 3DFx was the real innovator. When they wrote their OpenGL driver for Windows, did they modified Mesa [open source]. What was the downfall of 3DFx? The attempt to protect their intellectual property that led to their downfall.
The non-commercial world doesn’t move that fast.
He must be dizzy from the high speed roll outs of Microsoft products.
Linux is a clone of UNIX.
Cloning means to make a copy of. Linux is not a copy of UNIX.
Linux hasn’t blazed the trail, new approaches to security, new approaches to program development.
If it ain’t broke…
Even program development in the UNIX world, the sort of trail-blazing, is quite broadly being done by BEA and IBM and Sun and the Java crowd.
Funny, I thought that these companies were also developing the trail-blazing systems for the Windows world as well!
But at the end of the day, it’s about innovation.
Right on brother! To hell with stability or useability!
It’s about competing.
Against whom? Your customers? Surely, not those trail-blazing system developers who are developing for your system. You don’t mean against, gulp, everyone so that you have replicated all other “competitors” systems into your “operating system”? Why, dear me, isn’t that the definition of monopoly?
And it’s about building up enough of innovative intellectual property to have a good business.
Why, I guess it is about monopolization and protecting it!
“The idea that everyone could contribute to an OSS project simply doesn’t fly in real world – image 1 million willing and able guys try to improve say XFree86, the situation would simply lead to an unmanageable chaos.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
You have just discovered exactly *why* there must be two desktops, numerous filesystems, etc, on an open platform. Also, you’ve discovered an important economic principle (diseconomics of scale) that explains exactly why the whole “many similar companies competing” paradigm is so efficient. Competition is the natural order of things — it only seems suprising because how unnatural the software industry is today.
Isn’t a Microsoft innovation… It was “invented” in a company that Microsoft brought…
That happened with almost all the “innovations” of Microsoft… They either brought the tech (as with the SGI patents, now MS patents), brought the company that owned the tech (as it happend with Direct X) or just copied (with the TCP/IP Stack)…
The quantity of “innovation” that is atributed directly and as first-commer from the MS ranks is very thin indeed. There is a site somewhere that lists all the tech that MS states as “innovative” that isnt theirs… i wish i could remember it’s URL…
Cheers,
Kind
I have no love for MS, but a lot of these incidents are companies/individuals cashing in on a totally broken US patent system.
Of course there are a few legitimate cases where MS did actually make agreements with companies, suddenly break off the relationship and then somehow a few months/years down the road the technology just “appeared” in the MS products.
MS innovated…their innovation was in realizing that they could make money by circumventing the technology folks and selling directly to the PHB’s.
Microsoft does innovate:
http://research.microsoft.com/
I don’t see Linux people giving any money for academic development. I’ve seen IBM and even Apple try and help out academics with donations, but Linux people just try and claim all academic research as their own, which it *isn’t*.
There may be small areas of innovation in *open source*, but most open source stuff is not innovative at all. And Linux, the kernel, is most certainly not innovative.
Question to Mr Ballmer: how innovative is NTOSKRNL.EXE and HAL.DLL? After all, that is a direct comparison to Linux.
Otherwise, you would need to compare Windows XP Profession to Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS. Or Windows 2000 Server to SUSE LINUX Server 8. In otherwords, you need to compare product bundles.
For that matter, the Linux kernel is such a small part of the total bundled package, that you may as well start comparing similar packages with different kernels, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or ***gasp***, Mac OS X.
But then that would be logical, and FUD disappears in the prescence of logic.
When MS buys a company and incorporates their innovations into their product and mass markets it, that is innovation. Who cares if Microsoft invented it, they were able to bring it to market when no other major company could. (However, ripping off innovations of say Apple, is not innovation, it’s stealing. But stealing is okay in the software world)
The real innovation is, as others before me have alluded, is to produce what should be a high quality commodity (no an oxymoron if you have any self-respect) at commodity prices. THAT is the innovation.
MS def. of innovation according to MS: kill all open software standards. MS: no thanks.
Really, this guy should not be allowed to open his mouth.
– Linux was first with 64 bit file support
– linux has added better thread suport.
– Linux was first to support 64 bit AMD Processors.
The real disappointment is the Microsoft kissup’s writing in to this forum. So Uninformed. You programmers lead sheltered lives by only following Microsoft. You’re last on the list when it comes to new ideas in Computer science.
You don’t even know what you don’t know.
innovation
In`no*va”tion, n. [L. innovatio; cf. F. innovation.] 1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. –Dryden.
2. A change effected by innovating; a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites. –Bacon.
The love of things ancient doth argue stayedness, but levity and want of experience maketh apt unto innovations. –Hooker.
3. (Bot.) A newly formed shoot, or the annually produced addition to the stems of many mosses.
Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
QUESTION: When has microsoft implemented something that no one has done before? or… how they do it differently? Not many people are ‘truely’ innovative… some come close, and some are more obvious than others… Hmmm as in Expose on OS X… after actually using it I figure many coders are sayin’ ‘why didn’t I do that.’ Oh, and I’m sure there’s someone out there that thought of that idea many moons ago.
At work I’m forced to use MS. At home I use OSS.
At work I miss Tabbed Browsing, Multiple Desktops, Pkg_add, Make Install, and “minimizing windows to the titlebar”. At home I miss nothing.
At work licensing and update/reboots are annoying. At home only my ISP is annoying (and it uses MS.)
Perhaps the MS kernel is more innovative than the Linux kernel, I wouldn’t know. The only thing innovative I see in MS is their market spin.