Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Microsoft Employee On Unix Within The Empire
AntiBasic writes "This article over at InfoWorld recounts an Ex-Microsoftie's accounts of Microsoft's infrastructure usage of different Unices. Interesting insider's perspective which reinforces what we've been thinking all along.
For the most part, the company's money-making Web properties are all based around Unix, with Hotmail 99 being 99% FreeBSD, MSN using some Apache on Solaris, bCentral ad servers on 100% FreeBSD, and WebTV pretty much entirely Solaris.
"Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to even think about using it for production because it was too unstable," says the ex-Microsoft employee. "
You don't seem to have a clue what FUD means.
Your example is called Vaporware, not FUD. It is when a company announces a product long before it's released or perhaps even developed in the hopes of pulling mindshare aware from the competition.
FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It is when you say things about some other product not because they are factual but because you hope to spread well FUD about their product.
FUD is and can be used by everyone, considering the amount of FUD spread on slashdot I think it's pretty apparent that it is not isolated to large companies.
Guy Kawasaki (or Apple Evangelism fame) published a book a year or two back about "How To Drive Your Competition Crazy." One of the points he made was that you need to use your own product on a daily basis; not only does this give you incentive to improve it, but if you if you can't use it, then you know it's not very good.
Need I say more?
Try out Phorecast, open-source email, calendar,
Miles Davis hasn't sold nearly as many albums as N'Sync. It must be because N'Sync is superior.
Oh yea, this also means that Garth Brooks is the greatest musician ever.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America
I don't know where you got that information from, but it's dead wrong.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Sorry to be a negative nancy and all, but an "anonymous ex-Microsoft employee" is hardly the most reliable of sources, even on the internet where verification of information seems optional
I can't comment on internal communications, since I am not and never have been a MS employee. However:
telnet ad.linkexchange.com 80Trying 204.71.191.203...
Connected to ad.linkexchange.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:14:42 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix)
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Currently, www.msn.com and www.hotmail.com appear to be IIS.
We know that hotmail has run on BSD for some time, and that MS tried once before to move it to NT but ended up back on BSD.
I agree with you that MS freely choosing to run Unix is quite unlikely. MS running on Unix because their own OS isn't up to the task, however, isn't surprising at all. I also agree that MS wouldn't use competing products IF their own were comparable.
As for performing better under heavy loads, it does perform better than 2.2 w/ Apache under a heavy load with fast connections to the client. Many times more clients on 56K dialup (much more likely in the real world) is probably a different matter. I say probably because I havent seen a benchmark of that.
Sorry to be a negative nancy and all, but an "anonymous ex-Microsoft employee" is hardly the most reliable of sources, even on the internet where verification of information seems optional. And, like so many other "news" stories on websites this seems like an attempt to stir up activity through tried and tested FUD for the purpose of advertising dollars. And we've seen websites pander to the /. effect before, and yet we still visit them whenever they post a "Linux sucks" or "Linux r00lz" story don't we?
Maybe it is true, but I doubt it. After all, it doesn't really seem all that likely does it? Sure these places may have once run other OSes, but it has been Microsoft's policy to implement everything using Windows for several years now, and a sensible policy it is. They're not going to use competing products when their own is comaparible - it may be slightly less stable but it does perform better under heavy loads.
What this sounds like at best is a bitter ex-employee spreading FUD about what MS companies are using, and at worst a blatent fabrication designed to pull in traffic. Yet another strike for internet "journalism".
The source will be fairly deep once his concrete shoes harden.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
All this proves is the first-line servers are using a Windows operating system.
/var/tmp/hotmail
/var/tmp/hotmail-first
/var/tmp/hotmail-first | cut -f 2 -d ' '` >> /var/tmp/hotmail
/var/tmp/hotmail | sort | uniq -c
You'll note that a 302 redirect respose is returned by www.microsoft.com - it's the addresses that you're redirected to that are the interesting ones (of the form lc?.law?.hotmail.com).
The following script will test those:
#!/bin/bash
rm -f
i=0
while [ "$i" -lt 100 ]
do
lynx -head -dump http://www.hotmail.com/ >
lynx -head -dump `grep '^Location:'
echo $i
i=$((i+1))
done
grep '^Server:'
However the result is the same - 100% IIS.
- If Michael Dell carries a Thinkpad...
- If Scott McNealy gives the orders from behind a Deskpro...
- If Larry Ellison runs any Access databases "strictly for prototyping"...
Asikaa
Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.
Firstly, I hate Microsoft and most of the software they produce.
But... Has anyone stopped to ask why these ppl no longer work there? Perhaps they were sacked? Maybe they weren't up to scratch? Who knows, maybe they are trying to get "revenge" on MS by exaggerating the truth about what goes on inside Redmond.
Don't get me wrong, I would dearly love for this claims to be backed up so I could be childish for a few minutes and say "told you so" to some of my pro-ms workmates, but I hardly think we can just take the word of a few ex-employees who (as far as we know) might bear a grudge against their ex-employer.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Just because we would all love to believe that Windows 2000 really sucks so bad that Microsoft itself won't use, we can't fall for every other ex-Microsoft employee's statement. I have used Win2k myself, and it is way more stable than anything from Microsoft so far. On the other hand, this just might be the occasion for somebody in MS to speak up and tell us exactly what kind of software they are using for all their net initiatives, Madhu
True, Microsoft should be using their own stuff, but what about the case where they buy up an existing company which uses FreeBSD? If they were smart, they'd probably just leave things as is (if it isn't broken, don't fix it). But what amazes me, is that they just try to move everything to Windows.
Look at it this way. Let's say Windows 2000 was just as reliable as FreeBSD (or Linux or whatever). What would moving it from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 do for them? Really, nothing. The end user won't know the difference. If I just moved stuff around here at work from OS to OS on a whim, I'd probably be (rightfully) fired.
I just don't understand Microsoft most of the time.
Microsoft has aimed their software at the "enterprise level." I disagree with that. Their use of Unix internally (and we all know it's true, with or without disgruntled ex-employee corroboration) simply shows their software is *not* ready for the billion dollar enterprise.
Don't get me wrong, it's a decent workstation OS, and their products are excellent for the small to medium business who doesn't have time to hire and/or support an entire IT department around Unix. (Please don't flame me with "such and such" is easy to setup and configure under Unix. Installing Unix [and Linux] is still beyond the task of most normal people, okay?) It simply wasn't built from the beginning with enterprise scalability and reliability in mind, and there's way too much legacy code being dragged around to make it stable. (You can argue whether Microsoft supports that legacy code as a customer support initiative or simply to lock you in to their systems; that's up in the air. [Consider: Windows 2000 breaks all existing apps. You now have a clear chance to break free and use something entirely different, or stay within Microsoft. You choose, but the normal effect of throwing away years of legacy code by leaving Microsoft no longer matters.])
Anyway, my opinion is that Microsoft's stuff is good for the small to mid sized business, not the enterprise level business. Microsoft itself is an enterprise business. Thus, it cannot use its own products. What's wrong with that? Their IT department are the only people who have half a brain and make decisions based on information other than marketing? *shrug* Okay.
-- Talonius
My reality check bounced.
Hotmail and Linkexchange were both purchased by Microsoft. Trying to move massive applications like that over to different OS's is a massive undertaking with a large chance of consumer disruption. In my time in the IT field, I've gone through a few data conversions and minor system uprgrades to enterprise systems -- nothing like a Hotmail conversion, but it took months followed by months of testing to make sure it worked. Except for the bad PR, there isn't an urgent reason to move these services to a Win2K platform. It'll occur, just not immediately.
I don't know any of this as fact, but it seems to be a reasonable theory to me.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
the point is they *should* have reason to move to windoze, or their product has no purpose. there's no way it can be cheaper than freebsd, so if it was merely equivallent, then it would be useless.
as it is, it is
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I've long suspected that Bill Gates doesn't actually use his own software, and this seems to confirm it (I'm not sure whether to use a :) or :/ or :( )
This reminds me of my proposed punishment for the DOJ v. MS case: Require Bill Gates to write a >200 pg thesis and 45 min presentation using Win98 (not SE), 28.8 modem, P2-400, and Office 97 (not updated). The thesis must have figures, tables, equations, endnotes. It must be printed with page numbers on alternating sides for publishing. The presentation must be on overheads, produced with Powerpoint.
He is free to download any software he wants from the 'net, or Windows Update via his dial-up connection. The only help he can get is from the MS website and other online sources.
He can return to MS after this is done.
That's my gentle punishment. My serious one is to force MS to use its own software for *everything*-- development, reports, and accounting purposes, etc.
I suspect that their products would improve significantly after that.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
I fail to see the interest of this piece.
First of all, despite the respect I have for Infoworld, you have t oadmit that "Robert X. Cringely" is a gossip columnist, not a "serious" journalist like Nick Petreley or the Security Column guys.
Then, it has been public knowledge for very long that Hotmail and others rely on either FreeBSD or another (proprietary) *NIX. That this has been a constant source of embarassement to M$, and a constant source of gloating from the *BSD/free-software-as-in-speech camp.
IMHO, this story should have appeared (at best) as a quickie, not as a full-blown story. It would be much more interesting to have reliable info (any info) on how the Hotmail migration from FreeBSD to Win2K is going.
This opinion, is, of course, exactly worth what you paid to read it... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
By this logic Harley-Davidson should use their motorcycles to haul motorcycles to dealers instead of using big trucks
harley does not advertise that their bikes can tow things.
m$ makes claims that everyone should run some form of Windoze, for every possible situation.
that is the difference and the reason why this is a funny article (though as i said in another post, no revelation to those of us who have experience w/windoze and various forms of *nix.)
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Cringely columns usually get their info from unauthenticated emails, which makes them potentially as reliable as a an Emulex press release. However, the basic info on where MS runs Unix--mostly through companies they've acquired--has been discussed in a few places. What business-minded person really thinks it's a good idea to spend scarce technical resources to reimplement a complex system on Windows 2000 just to spite Unix?
Be careful on interpreting the Windows 2000 comment though; the product was announced over a year ago, and it certainly wasn't ready for prime time then. I currently manage three web servers and a MS SQL server that run Windows 2000 and I can tell you it's an improvement from NT.
I know a few people that have worked there and a bunch of them are proficient in *nix and also are smart enough to realize when their products are inadequate. Here's a conversation I had with a friend.
me: So how do you guys manage to use Visual Studio Source Safe to manage all those millions of lines of code in Win2K and Office?
friend: we don't.
These same people admit that NT sucks [but evangelize on Win2K]. Frankly I can believe that internal memos circulated about the stability of Win 2K, after all didn't it once have 65,000 known issues.
It seems that MSFT employees simply choose the best tool for the job, and if it isn't their product, tough shit. Frankly I respect them for this a lot more than most rabid slashdotters who can't admit that Linux/Unix is not the end-all and be-all of computing and sometimes Windows or a Windows application would be a better choice.
(-1 Troll)
The article failed to mention that MS's back office systems are run on IBM AS/400's. This is a well known fact in the IBM circles. MS runs about 20+ AS/400's. Having been in the IT world for too long I figured I should let this be known. I am surprised this "ex" employee failed to mention this! I am somewhat suspicioius that only the Unices were mentioned and not the AS/400's. Was there some alterior motives in this "ex" employee by only mentioning Unices? I don't know... The fact about MS using AS/400's has been circulated lots of times in the AS400 usenet newsgroup.
I find it funny how many non-MS systems MS actually runs!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
According to this poll, 30% of readers spend most of their time in a windows environment.
And according to this poll, 73% of readers run more than one OS on their machine. I bet most of these people are dual booting windows.
Before everyone screams and yells "hurrah! haha M$ uses unix!", just sober up on these statistics. Microsoft may not be able to rid itself from UNIX, but many of us certainly can't rid ourselves of Windows!
About a month ago a Slashdot article reported that some Windows 2000 machines have been introduced into to the Hotmail load-balancing pool.
/var/tmp/hotmail
/var/tmp/hotmail | sort | uniq -c
One poster has used the following script to verify this:
#!/bin/bash
i=0
while [ "$i" -lt 100 ]
do
lynx -head -dump http://www.hotmail.com/ >>
i=$((i+1))
done
grep Server
Results:
95 Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b
5 Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
I have just run this script again and got only IIS. It looks like the assim^H^H^H^H^Hconversion of Hotmail to Windows 2000 is now complete.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.