Linux CEO Lashes Out at Ballmer

[LANm0nk3y]

Wow, there's some misconceptions floating around here...

To put it up top - I work for Mandriva. I wasn't involved in this particular deal and these are not official company statements, but obviously I should mention that.

One, the problem is not, per se, losing business to Microsoft. As Francois wrote, there was a long period in the life of this deal where Mandriva and Microsoft were competing for the deal. Had the Nigerian government at that point said "thanks for the pitch, but we like Microsoft's offer more" and gone with it - fine. Well, not fine, obviously we don't like to lose , but that's a perfectly normal way of doing business and wouldn't have been a problem to complain about.

The issue is this. There was, as mentioned, a several month long period where the project was competed over in the usual way. We submitted proposals, Microsoft submitted competing proposals, all business as usual. And we *won* the project. The customer went with our - carefully detailed and worked out - proposal over Microsoft's. The deal was finalized, signed, and the units were shipped out.

*Then* the customer turned around and said "oh, actually, we'll pay you for the software, but we're going to wipe it and put Windows on instead".

I hope it's fairly obvious that this is not the normal way contracts go down. Imagine you're Megacorp A and you put out a contract to tender. Megasupplier B and Megasupplier C put in bids. You work with both of them to come up with detailed proposals, and after a normal, lengthy process, you decide Megasupplier B's offer is better, and sign the deal with them. You *pay* them for the goods.

At this point it would be really fricking weird for you to turn around not a couple of days later and say "Oh, actually - we'll pay you for the goods and take delivery of them, but we'll throw them in the trash right away and go with Megasupplier A after all".

Something in that just doesn't add up. Why would that happen? What can Megasupplier A possibly do in a couple of days after the deal is finished to convince you that their stuff is *so much better* that you should go with it even though you already paid for Megasupplier B's stuff? And if they had this wonderful equipment / proposal / whatever, why didn't they submit it during the regular tendering process, thus saving you all that money you spent on Megasupplier B's stuff?

This is why we're somewhat narked over the deal. Obviously as I'm not involved in the process I'm not in full possession of all the details, so I don't want to say anything more specific than that, but that's the actual aspect of the proceedings that we're questioning. If Microsoft had simply beaten us in the normal competitive process - that's one thing. This seems rather different.

Adam Williamson
Community manager, Bugmaster, newsletter editor
Mandriva

THERE'S DEFINATELY A PERRRRFECT LOGICAL EXPLANATION....

I think....

You see, they've already had these "scam" applications running on Windows platform. Obviously, the proposal was never channeled down to the IT department (Like a lot of companies out there). It might be channeled down only to the IT director (doesn't mean he knows). Then the director thinks that the proposal for the would be fine... HOWEVER... When the whole deal goes through, he went and told the IT department staffs and they were outraged because they weren't even told and consulted with. And they said, WTF B****? How the hell we gonna get scam money because we've only written the program for Windows. On top of that... HOW do we even know it's going to work if we can't spread it on a Windows Box? So the Director went and told his superior and the superior is like, "Well FIX IT! The IT director said ... Well, we would just wipe out linux and buy Microsoft O/S".


BAM...

Sorry, heheh just kinda poking fun at this topic --- no hate mail please.

 

[Talz]

I hope it's fairly obvious that this is not the normal way contracts go down. Imagine you're Megacorp A and you put out a contract to tender. Megasupplier B and Megasupplier C put in bids. You work with both of them to come up with detailed proposals, and after a normal, lengthy process, you decide Megasupplier B's offer is better, and sign the deal with them. You *pay* them for the goods.

At this point it would be really fricking weird for you to turn around not a couple of days later and say "Oh, actually - we'll pay you for the goods and take delivery of them, but we'll throw them in the trash right away and go with Megasupplier A after all".

Something in that just doesn't add up. Why would that happen? What can Megasupplier A possibly do in a couple of days after the deal is finished to convince you that their stuff is *so much better* that you should go with it even though you already paid for Megasupplier B's stuff? And if they had this wonderful equipment / proposal / whatever, why didn't they submit it during the regular tendering process, thus saving you all that money you spent on Megasupplier B's stuff?

Obviously something screwball went down. I've seen things just as screwy happen at US corporations and in the US government though and have little to nothing to do with the competition doing things under the table. Often it's just one side of management winning an arguement with the other after the deals started to go through and deciding that even though it's going to be less efficient the 'winners' still do things the way they want to.

Not knowing the details I'd point out if you gave the Nigerians a killer deal on the initial purchase they could easily be the ones that bent you over getting the best initial price and then have used that to bend MS over getting a discount on windows upgrades. I don't know this as it's pure speculation on my part, but it makes at least as much sense as the rambling half assed accusation of corruption your CEO made.