This is the money quote from the Business Week piece
On open-source software: I think we have a
total-cost-of-ownership advantage over open-source software. Also,
there's very little innovation within the open-source community for
empowering people.
Patent nonsense.
First off, the TCO advantage is firmly in OSS's favor. I mean, you can run an enterprise app on Open Source Software. No licensing cost. More money for development and hardware. Need I continue? Want to do a quick calculation of the licensing cost of an enterprise solution on MSFT? Granted, you can do a lot on Windows, cost always matters.
Why mindlessly shove funding down the giant gullet of a bloated software company when you can engage a community of dedicated technologists that know the solutions really well and share your interest in the stability, security, and most importantly improvements to the package?
Secondly, Open Source is the definition of empowering innovation simply because the code is accessible. It's the whole point. You don't need to own a software company or have mad cash to build and/or use software that works. You can do it with friendly developers accross the globe, seperated by geography but united by common goals. Innovative?
After all, OSS is pretty much free, and built for people to use to...you know...do stuff that makes their lives easier. Explain to me how some dude in Mankato er wherever building a useful component to a larger project, using it, giving it back, and then more people adding to that and giving their work back - everyone improving and building upon one another's efforts - explain to me, Mr. Ballmer, how your politically driven, money grubbing managers are more innovative for the people than that?
Plus, Monkey Boy.
Link: The Gospel According to Ballmer.