Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's First Ad Targeting Linux
calx sent us a link to this image (mirrors please!) which appears to be Microsoft's first-ever ad directly against Linux. Not bad for an operating system that Microsoft claims is nothing to worry about. The ad essentially says not to trust Linux 'cuz it could mutate (it's actually pretty cool). Here's more information at LinuxToday. [Updated 19:51 GMT by timothy:] dicast threw this mirror onto the sacrificial fire, too.
"An open operating system does not only have advantages."
"An open operating system can mutate many times. With Windows 2000 (service pack 2.1.3a stroke four with several additional undocumented manual registry fixes), however, all services are available from a single illegal monopoly. That can really frustrate you when security holes are left unpatched, and cost you when the greedy corporation wrips money from your pockets through the use of overly complex licensing agreements and upgrade plans."
Linux follows in a long tradition of UNIX systems, and while they have never offered much in the way of binary compatibility, UNIX/Linux has always provided much more source-level compatibility among its implementations than any other multi-vendor OS. It has also, amazingly, offered much more source-level compatibility than Microsoft ever managed to offer among their own line of operating systems.
Stable APIs and predictable evolution are one of the main reasons I choose Linux over Windows. Well-written code from 20 years ago still works just fine on Linux and takes full advantage of fast processors and large memories. If Microsoft wants to compete on this basis, they have to first reach that level of standardization of their own platforms. Until then, the best choice Windows programmers have is to insulate themselves from the haphazard nature of the Windows APIs and Microsoft corporate strategy by going with something like Java, wxWindows, or Delphi.
Or, to put it differently, a penguin with rabbit ears is still a penguin. Microsoft has been producing a whole zoo instead.
To mutate to your needs?
I don't think MS is scared of Linux, but they are scared of the courts. This ad is directed to the courts, not towards consumers.
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Look, the whole MS v. Linux feud has been going on for quite some time now (publicly since the Halloween documents, and privately since at least 1995). But whereas Microsoft is publicly showing its dedication to this relationship, showing they're willing to go the extra mile to keep the love burning, what have we done? What have we contributed?
Nothing. That's right: nothing. We're like spoiled kids unable to grasp the fundamentals of longterm relationships: communication and a willingness to share responsibilities and efforts equally between the two parties. They throw the antitrust case for us, but what have we done in return? We didn't even thank them. Pretty soon, Microsoft will stop speaking to us at all, maybe crash at a friend's house and start running up therapy bills with their suicidal thoughts and deppressional motivations.
Linux needs Microsoft the way Laverne needs Shirley. Without them, our drive for excellence will atrophy, just as theirs did when our relationship started petering out years ago. Why do we even make the pretense of a relationship at all? We should sever our ties and free Microsoft to pursue their old flames again, like that Apple fellow.
But unless we can take that drastic step (and I don't think we can, since we're so accustomed to the emotional security that comes form an abusive and dysfunctional relationship), then we have to start contributing again. Let's reaffirm our love by sabatoging the 2.4 kernel. I realize Redhat's been trying to help with their Redhat7 bugs, but this is a responsibility we have to assume ourselves. At the very least, we must slow down development a little, get a big smug attitude of victory and give Microsoft a chance to catch up.
Unless we do, it may spell the end of a beautiful relationship.
-- Anne Marie
First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi
Microsoft realizes that one of the primary advantages of Linux is its ability to mutate into specialized versions. Microsoft has also realized that their current and potential customers know about this advantage of OSS. But Windows isn't going to change to be more like Linux; in reality, it can't because it is proprietary. So the solution for MS is to downplay that advantage and try to turn it into a disadvantage, at least in the eyes of people who see their advertisements.
If you didn't know anything about OSS and the passion behind it, you might think that it's foolish to rely on a bunch of programmers scattered around the world for your business software needs. After all, there's no real accountability. This is what MS is trying to play off of. But those who are "in the biz," to use the parlance of our times, know that OSS ironically has better reliability and abundant support, despite not being centralized.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
When is Microsoft, and other closed source advocates, going to realize that this is the whole point of an open operating system? The people using these don't want feature overkill, for security and speed reasons. It seems natural then that they'd drift to an open kernel. What you don't like you can just opt out. Can you do that with, say, Win2k? To a limited (severly) extent.
Infact, this ad may be counter productive for Microsoft - it seems to be advertising just what we want, that Linux is a customizable, diverse OS, and that if the maintainers dissappear, it will still be extendable and updatable. If Microsoft goes down in a great ball of litigation, who's going to provide support for all the Win2K boxes out there? Even more important, will there still be support for them in 5 years time, even if Microsoft survives?
I think not.
-Medgur
"An open operating system does not only have advantages."
"An open operating system can mutate many times. With Windows 2000, however, all services are available from a single hand.(?) That can really save you time and money."
Or something like that...
---
...I could see this as a particular PR coup for linux...
Look at it this way:
Linux: Nietzchian Super-Mutant OS!
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
Now what was that about an OS mutating into incompatible incarnations?
Of all the companies that should hold their tongue about the worry that Linux could "mutate" into something that causes you support troubles, Microsoft sits on top. Between versions of Windows 95 (sing 'em with me now - 95A, 95B, OSR2...), incompatibilities with service packs in NT products, and file format changes in just about every successive release of Office, it's surprising that they can even remember what the hell the products are long enough to mount a defense to the anti-trust... oh, wait. The lost that big time, didn't they.
Of course, I suppose this experience does lend them some degree of credibility. I'm looking for an English version that reads something like this:
Well, here in Holland, there's only one kinda frequent M$ advertisement. It is on radio and TV, and all it does is...
...remind you that you have to pay for Windows!
Yes, I am serious. All the commercial says is "if you install software on multiple machines, you must not forget to pay up multiple licenses". It's presented as if this is a general rule for software, but the images in the TV commercial make clear that this is a Microsoft commercial.
Actually, some folks on http://www.nl.linux.org/ seem to have complained to the Commision of Advertisements about this. Just for the record, I guess.
It doesn't really irritate me that it is suggested that you have to pay licenses for all software. What does irritate me is that this seems to be all the advertisement M$ needs. I never managed to get rich of saying "hey, you, give me loads of money, and don't complain about it", so why should they.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
One of the main rules of advertising is that as soon as you mention your competitor in your ad you're already dead.
Anyone ever tell this to Pepsico?
Pepsi mentions Coke in almost all of their adverts.. any wonder they're still number two?
It's real, on page 58 of the current edition of c't magazine. c't doesn't have a history of publishing fake ads.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music