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.

Comments

This is the problem with Windows, not Linux

[jetson123]

What about Windows? Right now, developing for Windows, I have to deal with Windows 95/98, ME, NT4, 2000, CE, and possibly still 3.1, all of which have come out over roughly the span of a decade. "Windows" has four almost completely different kernels (and I'm not even counting DOS). The Windows APIs have been mutating between Win16, various incompatible flavors of Win32, MFC, COM, COM+, ActiveX, and god knows what else. Microsoft cannot make up their mind whether they are going to support C++, Java, C#, VB, or something else.

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.

Tactical Attack for Anti-trust case

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

Microsoft needs to demonstrate real competitors for their upcoming appeal, to get Jackson's ruling altered or dismissed. Running ads attacking Linux will let MS say "See, there is a credible threat to us."

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.

Now is the time to be smug

[Anne Marie]

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.

Ghandi said:

[Jeff Tranter]

First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi

Another mirror, and loose translation

[Booker]

here

"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... :)

---

The irony.

[sammy baby]

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:

Obsolesence and incompatibility aren't things you want to lose sleep over. We've been building obsolescence into our products at the design level since before that Finnish guy could even spell WWW. With Microsoft products, you know that your forced upgrades will come at semi-regular, three year intervals. Unless we need to generate some liquid cash or something. Then we'll just introduce Windows ME Double Live, or something. No big deal, right?

M$ reminds us to pay up in Holland through ads

[Pflipp]

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...