"Linux is *the* threat," Says Microsoft

Ami Ganguli writes "Anybody who works selling Linux into large accounts should read this leaked MS memo on The Register. Show it to your clients as well. The good news is that Microsoft is scared. The bad news is that these guys play tough. On the other hand, I've worked with IBM sales before, and they're no push-overs either." And it appears that they want to go after the the City of Largo as well.

Comments

Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[AtariDatacenter]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. For the same reason, Linux isn't the threat. People who use Linux to kill Microsoft are the threat. ;)

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[Chocky2]

It comes down to senior management, and most execs are non-techie. Much microsoft advocacy is down from a primarily business perspective, much nix advocacy (especially Linux) is done from a primarily technical perspective; until nix vendors do a better job fighting Windows on the finance, marketing and media battlefield they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft, irrespective of the technical merits of the products involved.

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[ScumBiker]

mod parent up! This says exactly what I've been talking about to my various managers for years. The big problem is, the argument is starting to fall apart. Win2k is almost acceptable from a technical viewpoint, so you need to get into more detail. Exec's don't want to hear detail, their eyes glaze over. At that point, you lose. I'm on the IT Architecture team here now, and I'm finding it difficult to even get the rest of the team to listen. grrrrr. I did manage to get them to consider allowing us to install a Linux box running Oracle 9iAS though, so I think I 'm getting a win. It occurs to me that we (us geeks and sysadmin types) are the only people really selling Linux, our counterparts in M$ land are professional sales people. We kick their ass technically, don't we? No wonder it's tough for us to beat them in the board room, closing the sale so to speak.

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[jpmorgan]

That's exactly the problem. Upper managements aren't techie and don't care about the technical merits, which so many of the Linux community seem to have so much trouble getting beyond.

If Microsoft's people can walk in and convince upper management that their products can do the job cheaper than the Linux alternative, 9 times out of 10 they'll get the contract. Anything else would be foolish.

Don't go on about how you don't have to pay license fees for the OS and how this makes Linux a vastly cheaper alternative. Most people realise the fact that OS licenses, in the real world, are a minor factor in the total cost of ownership compared to maintainance, management and training.

It's time the community got together and came up with some significant financial and economic advantages associated with Linux and get beyond the 'free as $0' argument. Then Microsoft will have something to worry about.

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Upper managements aren't techie and don't care about the technical merits"

You are so correct. Although I feel that in the long run, Microsoft will have to fall.

As quoted in the memo : "This is a key win and will expand from 5 servers to 100's of servers as " managers discover that it takes more hardware (and hence more licen$e$) to accomplish the same task. These management types are interested in how effective the platform is at accomplishing the task, because that translates into $$$$. Going from proprietary *nix on propritary hardware to Linux is a big win. Going from there to NT isn't.

These people will learn from their mistakes ( slowly ) look what happened in the *nix wars of the 80's -- eventually most everyone realized a standardized open-source *nix was the way to go.


and you will never see Windows running on big iron -- or anything other than pee cees for that matter

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[infiniti99]

...they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft...

When did Linux even have ground to lose? I find it funny when people say that Linux has "lost" or "is losing" "The Battle" (tm). It's not like they've been duking it out since the beginning of time. Linux-on-the-desktop is a relative newcomer to the scene, and despite the ups and downs of the various Linux companies, the number of Linux users has continued to grow steadily.

As far as I know, Linux has never lost any ground. But then, at this stage, there isn't really much ground to lose. Let's have this discussion again in 10 years when (let's make a hypothetical situation) Linux has 90% of the desktop market and Microsoft suddenly makes a comeback, pushing Linux to 89%. I would consider _that_ to be loss of ground, not anything going on presently.

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[buzzini]

Not totally relevant, but I like pointing out that most senior Microsoft execs are very technical. Senior VP of Office was originally a developer, Group VP for Platforms has a cs doctorate, Senior VP for Services was originally a developer, etc, etc. If they're not CS, they have math backgrounds.

Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are.

[Tassach]

Java socket code is just a layer on top of the underlying OS's TCP/IP stack. Yes, it's a lot easier to write socket code in Java than it is to write it in C using the BSD library, which is the whole point of Java. But in the end, it's all just invoking the appropriate kernel calls.

No News Here

[KingAdrock]

To tell you the truth, the memo looks like one you would find in any major corporation. Microsoft and Linux are competitors, there is no doubt about that. I don't see why this is newsworthy.. But then again this is slashdot so I guess that doesn't much matter!

No this is not a troll!

Re:No News Here

[Evangelion]

Exactly. This is probably like every other motivational sales memo you've ever seen.

"[competitor] is the enemy. Make sure you never forget that, and focus on how bad they are and how good we are at [whatever we do]."

I don't see what the big deal is. Some middle-manager salesman guy writes that Linux is *the* threat, and all of a sudden this is MS' stance on the matter?

He's probably right, but that's beside the point.

Re:No News Here

[Ami Ganguli]

I submitted it, so I guess I'm biased. I agree that this isn't unusual. It's news because most people don't get to see how killer sales operations work (as I mentioned, IBM is also very agressive).

It's also useful for anybody who might be bidding against MS to have some insight into what they're up to. If you have a fortune 1000 client then it might be worthwhile to find out what their MS sales rep. has been up to.

Re:No News Here

[ThePilgrim]

I saw this first on that well know MS bashing site the Register what it seams to show is that MS sales droids are being incurraged to enguage in corperate espionage and where appropiate bribe the CIO's with as many discounts as nessacery to get MS through the door.
Of cause the sales pitch avoids issues like licence lock in

Re:No News Here

[zsazsa]

Brian Valentine isn't exactly "some middle-manager salesman guy," he's senior vice president of Microsoft's Windows division and has been at MSFT since 1987.

Ian

Re:No News Here

[Flower]

I have to agree. I didn't see one thing in that memo which was a big deal. Not even the note on Largo. The guy doesn't mention any odious tactics like the Halloween document did and it's the same sales pep talk you see even in smaller companies. "Rahrah! We got these sales. Rahrah! Go out and sell some more. Here's some tips for when you go out to the customer's site."

And what tips did he give? Be observant and ask questions. Use your knowledge of the customer to tailor a pitch to them. Gosh, I've *never* seen *any* vendor do that. How awful.

As for linux being the big threat, whatever. If Larry Ellison ever scored a couple of big sale with his thin client product you'd see a near boilerplate e-mail sent out telling the sales staff to watch out for them too. And it would have the same sense of urgency as this memo did. That's just the way this aspect of business works.

Re:No News Here

[Masem]

I agree -- I would expect no less of, say, Coke or Pepsi internal sales memos when either wins over a restuarant or food distributor to their side. As long as they are using fair tactics, (in this case, numerous salespersons with the right spin on the data) there's no problem.

We do need to keep vigilant, however, for when MS may abuse their monopoly position in order to extend their markets. If MS changed an internal protocol that failed to allow SAMBA or other file server software to intermingle with established desktop machines, and used that to say "Well, you can't use Linux and MS solutions in the same place", there would be trouble.

This, however, is nothing, but does at least reflect that Linux is no laughing matter at MS. How's the mantra go? "First they laugh at you, then they compete with you, then you win"?

Re:No News Here

[Anonymous Coward]

But they do do this by making their products use proprietary file formats. They have made changes to SAMBA to break non-MS implementations. You can bet their sales force know how to say their customers that MS will change its formats so Linux can't interoperate without saying that explicitly. The people that work and succeed at sales are cutthroats.

A personal story concerning an Oracle sales person. I believe that MS and Oracle learned their sales tactics from IBM, who learned from the door-to-door salesman of the past. These people know they are working in one of the most unforgiving jobs. You make one major mistake and you're history. I was in a meeting where Oracle was attempting to get my employer to make a major commitment. In that meeting a new sales person made a promise to me. One that wasn't true and Oracle couldn't meet. I never saw that person again. I asked about her in subsequent meetings and follow up phone calls. I finally learned she was no longer employed. She had made two fundamental errors. First she made an explicit, testable promise that couldn't be fullfiled. Her second was up staging the senior sales person by making that promise.

Also I had been raising strong objections to other promises/claims make by Oracle reps. Claims I felt where unrealistic and vague enough that we couldn't raise any issues when they weren't fulfilled. The same senior sales person didn't like that I was raising these issues and had started a campaign with our customer to make trouble for me. Since I was pointing out the problems with their product her answer was to eliminate me. These sales people know how office politics work. They know who has the power and they know how to work the CIOs and CEOs to get what they want.

Re:No News Here

[llywrch]

> I didn't see one thing in that memo which was a big deal.

I did: Ameritrade tried to migrate to Linux servers & failed. And once the CIO left (obviously due to the failed migration), MS marketroids swept in & convinced them to go with Win2000.

I'd like to know a little more about this failure. We need to learn from the mistakes made here, in order to improve Linux. (And when those Win 2000 servers start breaking, for the next person to come up with a better Linux/BSD implementation.)

Geoff

Re:No News Here

[smyle]

If Larry Ellison ever scored a couple of big sale with his thin client product ...

You mean the one that runs on Linux?

Re:No News Here

[4of12]

I don't see why this is newsworthy..

Well, you've been reading Slashdot too long if you don't think this is newsworthy.

The Register thought it newsworthy, and I agree.

The reason is that the news is different. We're not talking about the typical sales pep drive where company X tries to beat company Y. No. Here we're talking about where Company X is attempting to drive out A Movement. That's different.

Not to mention the news worthiness of anything that Microsoft is doing. After all, they are the world's single largest software company and their product is placed on over 90% of computer desktops worldwide. And, recently they have been involved in some court proceedings where the outcome of those proceedings could have far-reaching effects on the company and on computing in general.

So, yes, it is newsworthy.

Re:No News Here

[Arandir]

Be observant and ask questions. Use your knowledge of the customer to tailor a pitch to them. Gosh, I've *never* seen *any* vendor do that. How awful.

I've been flamed royal here before for suggesting that Microsoft might actually have committed acts that are not immoral, unethical or illegal. As everyone keeps telling me, "they're a monopoly so they operate under a different set of laws than everyone else".

Maybe those slashdorks are right. Maybe it is illegal for Microsoft to be observant and ask questions. Maybe it is illegal to tailor a sales pitch to the customer. Heck, as far as I know it might even be illegal for Microsoft to even process a customer initiated order.

Of course, the law doesn't actually say what these new rules are that monopolies must adhere to. Thus we get subjective and arbitrary law, the very antithesis of civilization. Oh joy...

Re:No News Here

[Flower]

I've been flamed royal here before for suggesting that Microsoft might actually have committed acts that are not immoral, unethical or illegal. As everyone keeps telling me, "they're a monopoly so they operate under a different set of laws than everyone else".

Yes, I would assume some things they have done are normal business practices. Yes, they are a monopoly and yes, now that they have been found to have illegally used that power, certain things that would be normal business practices for a competitor is now off-limits. It's the way anti-trust laws works or at least supposed to work. It doens't matter that MS is doing some things ethically. They're supposed to do that.

That said, there is nothing in this missive that would warrant scrutiny. It's a pep talk and a reminder that a linux installation is a potential sale lost. (And despite what the /. crowd feels about potential sales in the business world they mean something.) There is no explict "When you find a company considering linux give them the X Document with the funny numbers and falsified endorsements for our new .Net server."

Of course, the law doesn't actually say what these new rules are that monopolies must adhere to. Thus we get subjective and arbitrary law, the very antithesis of civilization. Oh joy...

The goal of anti-trust laws is to restore competition in the industry under the assumption that competition is always good for the consumer. What you see as subjective and arbitrary law I see as being capable of providing for flexible and thoughful remedies. Some penalty written in stone may work for a train company 100 years ago but would be useless in dealing with a software company, automobile maker or publisher.

Re:No News Here

[Arandir]

What you see as subjective and arbitrary law I see as being capable of providing for flexible and thoughful remedies. Some penalty written in stone may work for a train company 100 years ago but would be useless in dealing with a software company, automobile maker or publisher

I'm not talking about penalties. Penalties can be subjective without subverting justice.

If I am not a monopoly, then I know what the law is. I know what I can do and what I cannot do. If I break a law then I have no excuse. But if I am a monopoly then I do not know what the law is with regards to my actions. I do not know if exclusive contracts are legal or illegal. I do not know if bundling a browser is legal or illegal. And I do not know if collecting customer information is legal or illegal. The ONLY way I can find out is to have the issue brought before a court.

It is not justice for a monopoly to never know when any of its actions will subsequently be declared illegal.

Re:No News Here

[Arandir]

Any law with any freedom of interpretation has the same problems.

Of course. But that is beside the point. Let's say Alice kills Betty in a fit of jealous rage. Is this murder? Maybe, maybe not. It's up to a jury to decide. Is murder illegal? OF COURSE IT IS! The law is very objective in this area, and states quite unequivocally that murder is forbidden.

I can grab the law books and easily determine what actions are forbidden to me as an individual, or as representative of a corporation. But if I am a company that has been legally declared a monopoly, then I cannot determine this. Any specific action may or may not be illegal, and I cannot determine the difference beforehand.

Microsoft can have a fair idea. The law bans abuse of monopoly power.

A more vague and nebulous law I have never seen. This is subjective and arbitrary. What constitute "abuse"? What consitutes "monopoly power"? The whole point of the DOJ case was to define these terms as applied to Microsoft.

Let me give you an example not related to Microsoft. In my area Pacific Bell has a monopoly on local telephone service. Pacific Bell also provides DSL services which it does not have a monopoly in. It's easy to determine that Pacific Bell is a monopoly, since it acquired that status through direct government charter. But what constitutes abuse? Is charging $25 for DSL while everyone else charges $50 abuse? You don't know and you won't know until some court at some time says either yes or no. Maybe it's abuse if some companies go out of business because of it, in which case it can not be determined whether that action is abusive until after the fact.

Leveraging one monopoly (an OS monopoly) to create a monopoly in another area where you currently do not have one (say, a Browser monopoly) is illegal.

This is still vague, and even more subjective. Consider that Microsoft was developing Internet Explorer before they gained a monopoly with Windows. What is substantially different between distributing IExplorer for no charge while not a monopoly, and including it for no charge with the OS while you are a monopoly?

And here's the arbitrariness: what if cost-less Netscape had managed to successfully compete with cost-less IExplorer? Would a crime have then been committed or not? Or what if IExplorer were NOT bundled with Windows and Netscape still lost market share?

Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[AtariDatacenter]

I don't see that happening, at least in the enterprise space. The last thing they want is to downgrade an application to the Windows platform. (Frankly, here, they are HAPPY to get rid of Windows boxes.) Good luck trying to sell people on a switch like that. It isn't realistic.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[Ami Ganguli]

You haven't seen these guys work. They'll find somebody in the company to be their internal advocate and they'll keep feeding that person FUD, while building personal relationships over golf, dinner, etc.

Did your company just get a new CIO, CFO, CEO, Manager IT, whatever? Microsoft, IBM, HP, etc. all know this and have already offered him dinner at a nice restaurant. They know that they don't need to convince the techies, just a few well-placed managers.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[Computer!]

Yeah, you're right. Totally unrealistic. Is everyone ignoring the last part of the memo?:

Finally, there's the Ameritrade team. Lloyd Arrow and team lost initially to Linux in the design phases by getting vetoed by the CIO, even after winning on all other merits. After several months of schedule slips trying to implement Linux, the Ameritrade CIO resigned. The account team was back at it with the new CIO and within a month were ready to deploy Ameritrade's most strategic apps, their Stream Quotes Servers, on Windows 2000. This is a key win and will expand from 5 servers to 100's of servers as the service is rolled out to all of Ameritrade's customers. The win demonstrated our business agility and shorter time to market over Linux.

Sounds to me like Linux cost at least one guy his job. Not to mention the Windows solution was up and running in one month, according to this. Since it's an internal memo, they'd have no reason to lie, either. Anyway, if you're going to get all excited and take one portion of this memo as Gospel, you might want to keep reading before you toot Linux's horn.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[AtariDatacenter]

They're trying to connect schedule slips with the CIO resigning. In all likelyhood, they are not connected. Schedule slips happen all the time in IT. And it was probably related more to the application or custom coding than any operating consideration. But a senior Microsoft cheerleader puts a slant on it to give the impression that the CIO resigning and the schedule slip are related. Laughable.

The other thing is this... the expansion from 5 to 100s of servers. 5 windows boxes? Fine. 100s? There's a good place to start discussions of a new CIO resigning. Or should I call him an junior infrastructure architect? Talk about a nightmare.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[Sloppy]

The last thing they want is to downgrade an application to the Windows platform.

They might, if their Unix system is extremely old. I have seen minis replaced with a Netware server and a bunch of PCs running 'Doze.

At least companies like Sun and whoever's still left (?) that sells proprietary Unixes, supposedly has a sales force so that when someone's mini start getting old and clunky-feeling, they can be there to guide them toward buying another machine running Unix. With Linux, there is no one that quite fits that role. Linux killing off the other Unixes might actually be a good thing for Microsoft.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000?

[budgenator]

Maybe it was up and running in a month but more likely it was something vaguely similar out of the box and didn't realy fit the same specs that the linux box was supposed to do. In short how do we know that we are not comparing apples and oranges?

We don't do we, my crystal ball tells me that if the first CIO crashes and burns on a project, the new CIO gets all the specs downgraded he/she can. Downgrade enough and maybe the project is already done.

If it takes 50% more Win2K boxes to do the job, so much the better, that means more admins to supervise, more hardware and budget to manage, more leverage at the next eval for a pay raise because you have more responsibility!

...and still we talk about microsoft again.

[kipple]

isn't that a great way to make people talk about you? doesn't matter how, or what they say. just as they did when they blocked non-ie browsers to their website, *exactly* when they were launching xp..

I refuse to believe that those 'memos' escape microsoft non-intentionally.. it just sounds suspect.
just my .02 euros

Re:...and still we talk about microsoft again.

[Firiel]

I think I'm with you on this one. Just the opposite of "no news is good news": "any publicity is good publicity."

Yes, we are talking about MS, but we are also talking about Linux in the same breath, and not in that conversation-ending kind of way.

It seems that something so unassuming, so unpretentious (unlike their programmers) as Linux, is kind of like water. It will get into every crack, crevice, and nook, freeze in the winter and destroy us all =)

Good luck, MS

[MaxQuordlepleen]

Not too easy competing with free, is it?

They can't cry foul too hard though, since the relative cheapness of their platform and OS is one of the major elements that brought Wintel to the dominant place in the market...

Re:Good luck, MS

[daytrip00]

Well, Linux isn't necessarily free to use. If you want enterprise middleware (Application Servers, et al.) some buy WebShpere/WebLogic/whatever, which will set you back a few thousand bucks. MS platforms give you that middleware included in the price, moreover, if you're spending 80k on DB Server software, what does a couple thousnad bucks for Windows matter? Hey... But at least it's AN alternative.

Re:Good luck, MS

[einhverfr]

Not too easy competing with free, is it?

I would amend that statement:

Not to easy competing with Free, is it?

It is not the cost of the OS that matters but that there is an extremely large developer community working to make it better AND develop the kinds of application-building environments that Microsoft evengelizes. This helps to reduce the total cost and time to market. Whether Linux is there yet is a good question, and people like myself say it is, but the point is that it will continue to accellerate into other markets (desktop, etc.) and therefore is THE threat to Microsoft's very business model.1

Re:Good luck, MS

[Etrigan_696]

You forget one thing: Some people see linux's rapid development as a BAD THING. I know, it doesn't make much sense, but alot of "pointy haired bosses" seem to think that the constant betterment proces of Linux will CREATE work to be done by their IT staff. In some ways, they are right. If Slashdot posts an article saying "there's a security hole in [bind/sendmail/samba/name-your-service-daemon here]" Now (they think, anyway) there's 8 hours of IT staff time spent updating that service and patching the hole, then dealing with the user issues the patch/downtime will generate.
I've been through this at my job. Tracking usage at a university library:

Me: "Y'know, if we used linux instead of NT, we could track users better, and more easily generate the usage report you want...." {envisioning a simple perl script to scrape the samba logs)

IT manager {read that as "pointy-haired-Boss"}: "I'm not fond of linux. There's so many bug fixes that have to be looked at constantly. It's got poor security"

Me: "NT has even worse security, and there are no fixes released for it..."

IT PHB: "That's not the point... The point is, we won't be wasting all that time installing Linux's patches."

Me: "So you're saying you want to just ignore the problems and stick with windows?"

IT PHB: "Don't you have some work to do over in the business building?"

Later, behind my back, he told his manageroid underlings what I said, and his overall response was: "No-one ever got fired for deploying Microsoft."

Not only does linux need to "get better" and not only does it need to "appel to the suits" but it has to do both with such blinding righteousness that it can't be ignored. In other words it has to be FREE (speech), CHEAP/FREE (beer), and EASY.

I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[euroderf]

This is another case like the Macintosh. With pressures coming from all sides in the department of Justice case, it can be easily seen that it helps MS greatly if they have a competitor.

Enter Linux.

Linux is not remotely a threat on the desktop - as long as it has multiple different GUI's and window managers and toolkits and all the rest, and a lack of a decent browser or office solution, it always will not be a threat.

On the server end, Linux is more of a threat, but Microsoft has never had a big slice of this market anyway. If anything FreeBSD is a greater threat than Linux in this arena, as it is better performing.

However, MS will always have a big place of the server market for as long as they produce a system that is easy to use. Not everyone can afford £60,000 a year for a Unix export, especially small businesses, to keep a server running. MS ensure that a boss can do such things part time - this has really driven the internet revolution, by opening access to the internet to many who would have been cut out by a skills shortage before.

All in all, I can see that MS are wary of Linux, but in truth they have nothing to worry about, as the two OS'es operate in different spheres, and don't really compete at all except in the minds of unthinking Linux apologists and Windows Advocates.

Windows will always have 95% of te market, MS need have no fear of that. The only way Linux will threaten this is if they start behaving in a more proprietry fashion by gearing things at the consumer and not at the Linux Geek.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[savaget]

Linux is not remotely a threat on the desktop - as long as it has multiple different GUI's and window managers and toolkits and all the rest, and a lack of a decent browser or office solution, it always will not be a threat.


The latest Mozilla is more than decent.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[interiot]

it can be easily seen that it helps MS greatly if they have a competitor

They DO have an honest-to-god competitor though. IBM (someone not in bed with MS) is advertising Linux on TV. MS isn't exagerating the strength of Linux. OTOH, perhaps MS let linux get that way and has a plan to kill it after the hearings are over. But the conspiracy theories can go on forever, getting all the more improbable.

Also, the two OS's are not in separate spheres. MS produces several products (IIS, Exchange Server, SQL Server) that directly compete with some of unix's strong points. And Fortune 100 companies (eg. mine :( ) are replacing some of their unix servers with windows servers because management says to go that way. MS *is* a valid threat on the server side, if not technologically, then in some other way that god only knows.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[tmark]

I have been suspecting that Microsoft's strategy may well be along the lines of what the original poster suggested. Didn't the Hallowe'en documents emerge at a key point in the antitrust proceedings ? Isn't this memo now also emerging at a key point ?

That Linux is making vast inroads at the server level is undeniable, but whether this by itself threatens Microsoft's OS hegemony is very, very arguable.

However, with Microsoft seeding the public with the tantalizing possibility that maybe - just maybe - Microsoft no longer possesses the bone-crushing arm-twisting power of its former monopoly, they decrease the vociferousness of MS backlash and, more specifically, of DOJ remedies. Wouldn't breaking up Microsoft be silly if Microsoft no longer dominated the marketplace ?

At this point, Microsoft can do no better than suggest that it has serious competitors. This may well be the rationale behind this (supposedly leaked) memo, just as it may well be the rationale for Microsoft supporting Apple with its cash infusions and now more recently with Office X.

Don't believe everything you read.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[Omnifarious]

Your post consists largely of FUD about Linux on the desktop, lies about the administration ease of Windows, and untruths (or simply bad analysis) about what has driven the Internet revolution. I suspect it of being a troll, but if it is, it's an ingenious one.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[_Sprocket_]

This has already been labled as a troll - probably because it consists of common themes that surface and are debated. Its almost good old fashioned FUD. But enough bashing - lets hash out the issues.

Linux is not remotely a threat on the desktop - as long as it has multiple different GUI's and window managers and toolkits and all the rest, and a lack of a decent browser or office solution, it always will not be a threat.

I always enjoy these points. I might be failing to grasp the concept here - but I just don't see a problem with multiple toolkits, managers, etc. I can jump between KDE, GNOME, Winowmaker, Enlightenment, Sawfish... and still run all my apps without problems. What we're missing is tighter integration. It seems that KDE and GNOME are working on the architecture that'll provide the means for this integration in the future.

Its all personal preference, but I'm finding the browser and office apps sufficient on Linux now. And they're improving. They may or may not be the best available - but then, "best" is only one of many factors in the IT industry. The biggest challenge may very well be nailing the moving target for office automation - MS Office data formats.

On the server end, Linux is more of a threat, but Microsoft has never had a big slice of this market anyway. If anything FreeBSD is a greater threat than Linux in this arena, as it is better performing.

*BSD may be a better performer - but we've already touched on the fact that doesn't mean everything. BSD doesn't have marketing buzz around it. IBM isn't supporting and pushing for it. And that's probably a shame - BSD deserves more credit for where it is now, and where it'll be in the future. But in the end its a moot point. BSD represents the same threat to Microsoft that Linux does. They both provide a route to Intel-based hardware without Microsoft.

However, MS will always have a big place of the server market for as long as they produce a system that is easy to use. Not everyone can afford £60,000 a year for a Unix export, especially small businesses, to keep a server running. MS ensure that a boss can do such things part time - this has really driven the internet revolution, by opening access to the internet to many who would have been cut out by a skills shortage before.

There are a lot of businesses that can't afford ANY kind of dedicated IT expertise. Heck - even major governments and corporations out-source. That's why IT has a thriving consultant / out-sourcing industry.

I've found a rather nice consultant market supporting small businesses. Especially ones that started up their own internal IT and now need help. Running reliable network services requires more than finding somewhere to go clicky-clicky.

In some cases, I've helped stabalize their Windows environment. Build up missing pieces. Sometimes missing pieces include Linux (or *BSD) solutions - including web/gui admin tools. Sometimes Windows machines get replaced by Linux. In the end, its about providing a reliable infrastructure. Windows or not - that takes some knowlege.

All in all, I can see that MS are wary of Linux, but in truth they have nothing to worry about, as the two OS'es operate in different spheres, and don't really compete at all except in the minds of unthinking Linux apologists and Windows Advocates.

If we assume the leaked letter is accurate, then the whole idea of the two OS not competing is already proven to be false. And its not too great a stretch to believe the letter could be true. Both Linux and Win2k provide viable server solutions on commodity hardware (even if it might be slightly more specialized server versions of that hardware). Once you hit that hardware, a major price point is hit. All you've got left to argue is licencing and support contracts. And in the end, that gets swalled up in marketing.

Windows will always have 95% of te market, MS need have no fear of that. The only way Linux will threaten this is if they start behaving in a more proprietry fashion by gearing things at the consumer and not at the Linux Geek.

You're talking desktop. As this article is covering the server side, I'm tempted to say its missing the point (as is all the other desktop talk). But it does touch on some interesting themes.

The first is that Microsoft (like other tech giants such as Intel) know how volatile the tech industry is. They've profited by it. And they're paranoid that they'll fall victom to it. In short, current dominence does not guarentee the future. Enter .NET.

We all know Microsoft is investing heavily in .NET and there are probably many reasons for this. In short, if Microsoft is going to have a future .NET is going to be it. So .NET needs to be successful. The more Windows servers out there the better. As Linux gains ground, the more impact it will have on the success of .NET. The future is far from certain for Microsoft.

Linux could use some consumer-targeted improvements. But that doesn't have to happen at the expense of the "Linux Geek" or flocking to a proprietry stance.

Linux is usable today.

On the desktop, power users should have no problems. Complete novices should also have no problems assuming that the system is preconfigured (they would trip over either Windows or Linux if they had to do their own installs) and suitable applications exist (email, web browsing, etc). Its the desktop middle ground that will find Linux a challenge - perhapse more challenge than what they would get in return for the effort.

On the server (where this article is really focused) Linux is a viable competitor. It provides services and hardware support that makes it attractive. It has invaded the space previously held almost solely by Microsoft.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[_Sprocket_]

How on earth would Microsoft kill Linux? It's not like Linux is developed by some company or individual that they can just wipe out.

That's one of the facinating things about Linux and the marketplace. Linux introduces some new ripples in the old tech industry gambit.

Usually it involves attacking the marketability of a product until it is no longer financially feasable to support it. The product slips in to the business depths as its no longer financially boyant, but its too valuable to simply put in to the public domain.

The product dies.

Linux, of course, can't die in this manner. That's one of Linux's big selling points. The investment in architecture doesn't get sacrificed to end-of-life or upgrade cycles. Linux won't be killed off.

But...

Linux is currently enjoying some generally positive industry support. Microsoft's only target is that support. While industry support isn't critical to Linux, it does help.

So - "kill" is a really debatable point. But "hurt" is at least very likely.

Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered.

[crucini]

Microsoft can never stop you from running linux in your bedroom. But to 'kill' it in the business world, they will increase the value and lock-in factor of their proprietary systems. Whenever a system is commoditized and clearly specified (web, mail, news) free software can produce a leading implementation. But you may have noticed that we have no answer to Microsoft Exchange. Yes, most of our MTA's are better MTA's than Exchange. Yes, there are lots of web board systems that can replace some of the collaborative functionality.

Exchange is just not on our radar - we're patting ourselves on the back for handling the standard protocols so well, and not noticing that executives don't care. They love Exchange and will try hard to push out Unix solutions so they can bring in Exchange. So the first thrust is the replacement of open, commodity protocols with fast-moving proprietary protocols.

Second, attack the network. TCP/IP is the 'infection vector' for Linux. A TCP/IP network is a Unix network, and any other OS is just a guest. Microsoft could invent a proprietary networking scheme, get Cisco and other vendors on board, and maybe provide protocol adapters (buggy and slow) to let 'legacy' Unix machines connect to the shiny new network.

Third, attack the supply of cheap machines. With enough CPRM/SSSCA type crap built into commodity PC's, they could become unable to run Linux. If installing Linux on a computer becomes a major science project involving some illegal software, it won't be palatable to corporations.

Fourth, pinch off the supply of used ("obsolete") machines. Microsoft could team up with hardware makers, who are also 'harmed' by the pool of aging computers, to come up with some 'bit rot' scheme. Possibly an expiration date on each PC, or possibly an 'environmentally friendly' recycling plan/law where you have to turn in the old hardware.

Just some ideas. Microsoft has always killed competitors by cutting off their air supply. The key is to identify Linux's air supply.

Linux Compete Team

[JonasH]

There are many other things that you need to watch out for with Linux and the Linux Compete Team has been busy creating some great collateral to help you win

Oh! I volunteer for the Penguin Attack force[tm]. Can we have laser beams?

--
Rasher - use it in new amazing ways.

Re:Linux Compete Team

[Tackhead]

> Oh! I volunteer for the Penguin Attack force[tm]. Can we have laser beams?

Fuck laser beams.

Just gimme a baseball bat and a giant penguin-shaped robot.

Is the reverse true?

[webword]

Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Thnurg]

Is Microsoft THE threat to Linux?

I would say no. It may be argued that Microsoft may be a threat to RedHat, Mandrakesoft, Caldera etc. but they could never be a threat to Linux.

Linus would continue to maintain the kernel, GNU would remain hairy, and ESR would remain mouthy no matter how much ground Microsoft may take from us.

The only way Microsoft can threaten Linux is with crap like the SSSCA. Even then they can't use it to kill Linux, they could only force it out of the USA.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Black Parrot]

> Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?

Yes. Linux is cutting off Microsoft's air supply. Microsoft will do everything in its power to kill Linux.

And it won't be sufficient, for them, to merely get Linux out of businesses; as long as it merely exists they will continue to see it as a threat. So expect them to continue throwing money at businesses, OEMs, governments, etc., and to continue "oops"-breaking standards. But most of all, expect them to lobby for laws that will break the OSS paradigm under thinly veiled concern for IP, security, etc.

After the DoJ cave-in it should be obvious that the only way for non-MS products to survive is to proactively destroy Microsoft. Unless you're vested in MSFT, you should be doing everything legal + ethical toward that goal (though there's no reason to suppose that MS will hamstring itself with the "legal + ethical" bit).

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Florian Weimer]

If you are referring to the Linux phenomenon/hype, I don't know.

But if we look at Free Software in the broader sense, the answer is that even Microsoft is not powerful enough to crush the Free Software community. It might be harder than before to use Free Software (because you cannot access some content on the Web, or you cannot use certain hardware), but this would only result in a return to the level of, say 1995.

Of course, there are threats to the Free Software community. The most dangerous one is abolishing the general purpose computer, i.e. a computer on which you decide which software you run and install. Abolishing the general purpose computer is certainly on the agenda of the copyright industry (look at all these copy prevention schemes), but it is not something Microsoft can do alone.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Znork]

New MS OEM license just in:

"You may not sell Windows if any hardware you sell is capable of running Linux. Your BIOS may not allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not sell any BIOS that can be flashed to allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not allow booting from floppy disks containing linux software."

Or something to the same effect. Which is what will happen if they get the antitrust authorities off their backs.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[anshil]

Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?

No,

Because nothing what microsoft could do would suddendly make Linus, Alan and the rest of the linux gang think, "Yes, they right after all, let's stop hacking on this thing, buy an XP system and just play DOOM all the time."

Microsoft can theoretically take away the market from linux, but in contrast to ms the linux kernel hacking group is not dependant on it to survive. And honestly I also have played the poor little software bug victim long enough, theres just the day when you say damm all these Dr. Watsons, periodic reinstallations, pseudo auto "intelligence" pains and completly pestered days, I just wanted to stand up and do something different.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Black Parrot]

> Whatever happened to Linus saying Linux doesn't care what MS does?

I'm not Linus.

His sentiment is laudable, and I too subscribe to a live-and-let-live policy wherever others are willing to play by that same rule.

But Microsoft isn't willing. They have a long history of paranoia about having any other product competing in, or even adjacent to, their 0wn market space, and an equally long history of killing off those products by fair means or foul.

Idealism is nice, but realism contributes more to survival. Beat your swords into plowshares and you'll find yourself plowing for new masters.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[Billly Gates]

"But if we look at Free Software in the broader sense, the answer is that even Microsoft is not powerful enough to crush the Free Software community" Your right. A well written and specific law like the SSSCA should be enough to crush it.

"But if we look at Free Software in the broader sense, the answer is that even Microsoft is not powerful enough to crush the Free Software community" Microsoft is very involved in the copyright industry. IF you have XP just look at the WMA license manger. License manager? Microsoft is known to use other forces then themselves to accomplish there tasks. OEM"S are what made Microsoft into who they are today. Same is true with funding benchmark companies like Mindcraft. Buying laws is just the next logical step. If you can't access the hardware legally or technically then an operating system other then windows can not exist.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[HiThere]

Black Parrot may not, but I don't accept it the election as valid. The was no justification for counting Florida's votes.

The court specifically ordered that the recount not be allowed to proceed, and then, after sufficient time had elapsed, the ordered "since there isn't enough time for a recount, we will go with the original count, despite the evidence of x large number of illegal activities by the state in polling the populace".

It is true that there is no provision for holding a new election, which would be the only way to resolve many of those illegal activities (e.g., closing the polls early, forbidding people to approach the polls, moving them the day before the election, etc.), but to me this merely means that the entire states vote is fradulent, and should not be counted.

It emphatically does not mean that it is legitimate to use that vote to elect a relative of the govenor who presided over that farce of an election.

Re:Is the reverse true?

[crucini]

I agree. So really, governments are the threat to Linux. They are set up to listen to established interests, and they may squash emerging interests in the process. SSSCA could do it; defining Linux as a 'circumvention device' or 'hacking (=terrorism) tool' could do it. Or even getting legislation directly against Open Source, which Microsoft seems to be seeking right now. Or maybe a law that makes authors of Free Software liable for how it's used, regardless of the license.

The other way to kill Linux is to somehow make the next generation of hardware incompatible. Either legislatively, in the name of [national security|content control] or by paying/strongarming hardware makers. I think it is a few years too late for this tactic, however.

Why Win2K instead of XP?

[TimFreeman]

Any guesses why they're pushing Windows 2000 as a substitute for Linux instead of Windows XP?

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[Dynedain]

Because there is no server version of WinXP (yet)....the memo was focused on server OS sales....which will of course in turn determine the client OS used.....

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[Sc00ter]

You obviously havn't used XP. I installed it last weekend. it loads WAY faster.

2 options and it doesn't look all stupid too.. you get a normal (as in Win2k looking) start bar and windows.

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[An Onerous Coward]

1) Because it's been tested more thoroughly. They don't want any nasty surprises, and pushing the customers towards an older, safer product is therefore a good thing.

2) Once XP has been thoroughly tested/debugged/patched, they can send out their salesmen to explain/make up critical reasons to upgrade. This will make them more money.

Any questions?

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[sql*kitten]

Any guesses why they're pushing Windows 2000 as a substitute for Linux instead of Windows XP?

Because they're not competing on the desktop, but at the workgroup / data center level. This is clear in the article, why they are inventorying server rooms and competing with Sun, who don't have a much of a workstation presence outside specialist markets (engineering, finance, etc). Windows 2000 is the main server OS produced by Microsoft. I don't even know if there are plans for a server-optimized version of XP, possibly not, since the strategic objective of XP is to get the consumer market onto an NT kernel.

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[Jburkholder]

>Why does the server need a different OS

Because M$ wants to get a $$ differential between server and workstation versions of their OS. They deliberately cripple the workstation version so that it won't work very well in a server role.

>If WinXP cannot

I'm sure it can, once M$ releases the server version. I'm guessing that the major differences between the 'professional' and server versions like SMP support and the like are a matter of compile-time configuration when the binaries are make.

>obviously Linux must be superior

well, I'm not going to argue that conclusion, but for different reasons. ;-)

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[spongman]

simple: because Windows 2000 Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter are the only server products that Microsoft sells. The Windows .NET Server range (based on XP) hasn't shipped yet.

Re:Why Win2K instead of XP?

[drinkypoo]

Does the server OS really determine the client OS?

I guess it depends on your willingness to delve into and learn everything about interoperability packages.

Take Samba (please) for example; If you learn enough about it, which is not simply a matter of reading the documentation or even the ORA book, but also examining code, other people's example configs, and keeping up with the ML religiously, you can do some amazing things. If you don't, however, even doing relatively simple things with Samba can result in painful headaches. Troubleshooting it is even worse (Though I should point out that it seems to be slightly easier than troubleshooting the same functionality on windows.)

So you start at one end or the other, but for the most part the server defines the clients, and vice versa. The best server for microsoft clients (especially when you have a whole lot of them) is probably a microsoft server. Now, mind you, I'm talking about file and logon services here, not anything else. But in order to do most of the cool things you can do with windows (like restrict rights for a user, on all workstations everywhere) require a windows server if you want to handle it in an automated fashion. Sure, you can probably hack together your own solution for doing so, but the fact is that MS doesn't want you doing it and will make it difficult.

By the same token, if you're in a mainly UNIX environment, you don't want your core fileserver to be running NT. You also don't want to depend on MS' LDAP or Kerberos solutions, most likely. So this works in both directions and in both worlds (UNIX and NT, the only ones which really matter any more in business. MacOS is nominally UNIX but still has a Mac layer, so I don't lump it in.)

And of course, we all know that almost no businesses run on MacOS any more. Even printing houses are getting wise and going to PCs, since printing devices (even 4000 dpi Linotronic machines and suchlike) speak postscript which is just a matter of a printer description file anyway, and all the apps run just fine on windows now (Quark, Pagemaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, et cetera) so there's no reason to keep both around except to read macintosh media. With the widespread existence of CD-RW, even that reason is fading fast.

MS OpenMemo

[imrdkl]

From the memo: If any of you have additional wins against Linux, along with your strategies & tactics for winning, let me know for future e-mails!

Yes, and be sure to CC the person who leaked this memo!

Re:MS OpenMemo

[Verteiron]

Actually we should send Linux victories to the person who wrote this memo. I'd wager this memo was intentionally "leaked" to have a demoralizing effect on the Linux community. We can only be so courteous in return.

Re:MS OpenMemo

[jallen02]

What amuses me is that even among slashdot the slashdot crowd so few people are willing to challenge the authenticity of this "memo"

I am not saying I don't believe, but I still have my curiosities about the origin of the memo.

This is an "attention getter". What better way to circulate it through the Linux community than to put the face of Microsoft on it?

It worked, authentic or not.

Jeremy

interpretation

[jjshoe]

this is all up to interpretation unfortunatly and what side your on depends if you use linux or something else.

*shrug*

bribery?

[KingAdrock]

This is tantamount to saying that a car salesman should never go below the sticker price. Sales people have to sell. If it means giving discounts, so be it. I wish the sales people at my company did a better job of selling! Bribery is not the right term for what this guy is doing or what he is advocating others to do!

Catch-22?

[Yu Suzuki]

So is this good news or bad news after all?

I guess the good news is that it shows GNU/Linux is gaining in popularity, enough that it is now "the long term threat against [MS'] core business" but -- do we want Microsoft using its substantial influence to retard the development and implementation of GNU/Linux and related free software? This basically a direct assault by MS -- look at the language they're using: "wins against Linux", "Linux Compete Team", etc.

The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.

Look at what happened to, say, Napster. When no one had heard of it, it was great. Then the meme started to spread, and more and more people adopted it, and it eventually trickled all the way into mainstream news. And as it broke onto the mainstream, the RIAA immediately caught wind of it (well, they'd probably caught wind of it earlier, but didn't need to take action against it until it was getting too popular) and shut it down. It's sort of like underground bands that steadily gain in popularity for their genuine talent, then suddenly use that popularity as a wedge to sell-out and become yet another generic pop group.

Maybe GNU/Linux would be after all as a purely underground software phenomenom. Then the people who really need a free operating system can make use of it, without attracting fire from biased mainstream news outlets or monopolistic evil corporations. Maybe it's time to stop trying to position the growth of Linux as a "good" thing -- after all, you don't see ISO groups writing up Warez Advocacy FAQs, do you?

Of course, there's really nothing we can do to STOP people from adopting Linux. It's just part of the cycle of things. The underground, real coders start an operating system (remember, DOS and Windows were the new kids on the block once), it gradually spreads to more and more people, it starts getting compromised by the mainstream, the underground jumps ship, the platform soon dies without the support of the underground, and the underground begins its work anew.

To continue the MP3-sharing-software analogy, look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground.

It's all cycle.

Re:Catch-22?

[TwitchCHNO]

"look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground. "

Umm you missed the court injunction against napster & the discontinuation of thier service due to a COURT ORDER. I don't think there is going to ever be a court injunction against compiling a Linux Binary (wouldn't M$ love that?!).

You must consider this:

M$ is anti open standards - they don't like sharing. So in response linux - BSD & *nix open standards are being adopeted by an industry that needs interoperability - to compete - to function.

M$ is THE only company to use & prosletize Windows. Sure there are open hadware vendors such as Compaq - HP, IBM, Dell, & Gateway. Bu they have no loyalty to M$ & all offer *nix flavoured solutions.

M$ realizes it is one company - that the entire computing industry is moving against. (Hell even Mac jumped on the *nix bandwagon).

Yes it is cyclical - one company gaining crazy market share - that company being called the "evil empire". That once could also be said of Digital - or IBM.

I like the way the cycle is heading.

Re:Catch-22?

[grahamm]

Which is nothing new. Did Bill Gates not publish an anti free-software letter even before IBM introduced the PC and only hobyists used microcomputers?

Re:Catch-22?

[ab315]

There is no comparison with Napster.

Napster was blatantly illegal and deserved to be shut down. It was just a warez site for music.

If people were trading free music that would be different. Some artists produce free music and it is up to the public what they choose to listen to.

Re:Catch-22?

[ethereal]

The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.

Here's the thing: free software is immune to Microsoft's normal kind of attacks. They can't buy it out, and although they can out-market it, the best and original Linux marketing was all word-of-mouth. Microsoft can't destroy free software as long as there remains one free software developer. They can only hope to contain it by competing on the basis of price and features. And competing with something that's free will eventually sap their strength, one way or the other.

Re:Catch-22?

[krogoth]

I'd like to know what MS can do against Linux. Sure, they can convince some customers to use Windows, but that's all. They have no way to directly attack Linux (the only thing they could do is submit bad code as patches, but I doubt that would work).

Re:Catch-22?

[cduffy]

Did Bill Gates not publish an anti free-software letter even before IBM introduced the PC and only hobyists used microcomputers?

No, it was really more an anti-'piracy' thing (IIRC over folks copying BASIC), though back at the time when copyright violation wasn't really prosecutable if not done for pay...

...though it did have some anti-Free-software undertones (asking how developers would eat if nobody paid for their software applies, after all, whether it's unpaid commercial software or built Free). Fortunetely, we've got good answers to all those questions now. :)

Re:Catch-22?

[dattaway]

Well, if that happened to be the ONLY reason people used cars...

The actions of a few got me thinking. If Microsoft sold cars, you'd agree to the auto-EULA, which states that you will not use the car parts to make other cars, copy it, use it for illegal purposes, speed, flip people off out the window, toss beer cans out the window on weekends, open the hood, only use MS sanctioned gasoline, or else your right to use the car is invalid and should be returned for a "full refund."

Sometimes I don't know why we support a system to make a few select people filthy rich just because they have the most aggressive business plan.

simple

[popeydotcom]

XP Home & XP Professional are desktop operating systems. XP Server is the server OS, and it ain't out yet. 2000 is the only server product MS are pushing right now.

And of course as we all know, Linux is a server OS, and isn't ready for the desktop ;)

Re:simple

[Jenz]

> XP Server is the server OS

I've heard the server will be named .NET (from Microsoft in Norway).

Unix

[sql*kitten]

Note the emphasis of the article. Microsoft believe that they are being very successful in migrating people away from Unix. Linux is eating into Sun, HP, IBM et al at the low end. Microsoft don't appear to be worried about people replacing Windows with Linux, they are worried about people *not* replacing Unix with Windows, which isn't quite as triumphalist as the Slashdot story suggests.

And the worry is not to do with TCO and administration and operations, areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast). It's the porting of existing applications, which is perceived to be easier from Unix to Linux than it is from Unix to Windows. But remember that you can buy tools (MKS Toolkit for example) that make it very easy to do, and that Rogue Wave et al sell APIs that make it easy, and that in a world of Java/EJB, the virtual machines on Windows are very good indeed - often faster than VMs from the same vendors on Sun.

So what I'm saying is, Microsoft are taking Linux seriously, like they take *all* existing and even potential competitors. And, my general feeling from reading sources like /. is that Linux developers like to compete against MS, but haven't givin much thought to cannibalizing the existing Unix user base, and *that* is where this particular battle is being fought,

Re:Unix

[rutledjw]

I'm rather suprised to see some of the comments above:
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)

According to whom? MS? I think not, as these OSs grow they are also growing in bloat, stability may be increased, but the ratio of people needed to babysit those machines is far greater than *nix. Also the overhead of running those system means that you need more hardware to achieve desired performance. Neither is a big TCO plus. For large scale systems, I don't know of anyone who's pushing MS for TCO reasons. They're simply not viable

areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)

WHAT?!? Which VMs are you speaking of? We justified migration to Linux based solely on speed tests (very basic tests) of Java on MS vs. Linux and Sun. Sun on SPARC wasn't really fair given HW differences, but Solaris and MS on Intel were neck and neck with Linux outperforming both by a comfortable margin (which suprised me all around).

I haven't seen many J2EE deployments on MS. Developed - yes, deployed - no. Why would someone want to? You develop something that runs on multiple plaforms and then deploy on the Lowest Common Denominator. Why?

I agree with you on the *nix front though. I think that much of the growth of Linux has been at the expense of lower-end *nix systems. The word is that Linux may not be eating away much at MS server numbers.

However, I've had 3 projects in the last 1.5 years replacing MS solutions for J2EE on Solaris and Linux, so I think there is migration which will catch up to MS at some point. This is not a battle to be won overnight...

Another MS internal memo...

[superflex]

From: Bill (chairman_bill@bukkake.microsoft.com)

To: Brian Valentine

Subject: Sales team motivation...

Brian,

I'm concerned about a lack of motivation on the part of our sales team in really pressing the benefits of XP, .NET, and the evil of Linux on our customers. As you know, Linux is the threat to our business, and we need all the wins we can get.

That's why I think we need to take a more agressive stance in our internal communications with our sales people. Starting today, I'm authorizing you to initialize Operation Ink. The main thrust of this operation is:

To make all staff aware that losses to our filthy Linux competitors will result in immediate butt-tatooing. Failure is not an option here people, and it will result in harsh, painful posterior inking of anyone who drops the ball. Staff should also be aware of the possibility of tatoo's being done by myself personally, with the additional possibility of sodomy.

Please make sure that all staff are made immediately aware of this new corporate policy, Brian. I mean it. Don't make me subject you to "discipline".

-WG

Re:Another MS internal memo...

[dvandok]

LOL!

Question: How do you recognise a MS salesperson in 2003?

Answer: By the painful look on their faces whenever they take a seat.

Funny, funny Brett

[p3d0]

"If they're the city of progress, why are they running Linux?", Brett jokes.

Ha ha ha! Oh hoh hoh hoh! Oh Brett, you rapscallion. You really know how to turn a phrase.

*cough* reliability *cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

i think someone should point out that the register often prints rumors and other stories with only a slight reason to believe something is true and very little research.

god knows i've seen countless articless there where they've just been entirely wrong.

What's the fuss, Gus?

[Carnage4Life]

Hmmm, I expected something extremely damning when I clicked on the Register story but saw little to be surprised about. MSFT's biggest rival in the server space used to be proprietary UNIX, now that expensive proprietary UNIX solutions are giving way to cheaper Linux solutions it only makes sense that MSFT should refocus their energies at Linux. This is especially since the biggest UNIX vendors(IBM, HP/Compaq, Sun) have all embraced Linux in one way or the other from IBM's billion dollar campaigns to Sun ensuring that the next version of Solaris runs Linux binaries.

MSFT didn't get where they were today by ignoring rivals and pretending they don't exist so I don't see why this memo should come as a shock to anyone. Frankly, what would have surprised me is if there were no internal emails flying around concerned about the growing popularity of Linux and how to tackle it.

Re:What's the fuss, Gus?

[spongman]

no, he's referring to Xenix...

This just in...

[NTSwerver]

...Linux may well be a threat to M$, but according to this article, a bug in Microsoft's new operating system could lead to actual physical harm of its users.

Marketing, marketing, marketing

[Zathrus]

I don't see anything particularly vile or reprehensible in the MS memo. It looked like some fairly standard marketing diatribe and the kind of thing that any agressive company would promote.

What's to be learned from this? That if you want Linux out there instead of MS, then you're going to have to market it. Whoever is selling Linux based solutions will need to be just as tenacious and aggressive as a MS marketer can be. No laying down just because Solaris/AIX/HP-UX/etc to Linux is a "natural" migration -- it's clear that MS will make it seem unnatural, slow, error prone, etc. After all, if they can sell IIS over Apache (and web service is one of Linux's strengths), they can certainly do it in other areas as well.

IBM's marketing department has been aggressive for decades. And I know most small firms don't roll over and play dead easily either (or else they wouldn't be in business long), but this is a good reminder that there's competition out there.

It is news

[Goonie]

Sure, it's a standard pro-forma "foo is the enemy" sales memo, but it is notable that "foo" is Linux (though it's difficult to see what other enemy Microsoft's sales force faces for low-end stuff).

Re:It is news

[IntlHarvester]

I don't think he's talking about low-end stuff. He's not bitching and moaning about Samba printservers -- he's talking about big UNIX applications that probably have strategic value that are not being migrated to Windows.

And he's practically admitted defeat -- he knows that customers trying rid themselves of expensive midrange stuff by doing a straight migration will find Linux the cheapest bet.* What he's going for is find places where these apps are being upgraded, rewritten, or replaced and make sure that Microsoft has their salesbots in there before the UNIX guys go forward with their solution.

All in all, I doubt he cares about 'legacy' apps. His real worry is that Linux migrations are an opportunity for Java and other cross-platform middleware to come into the picture.

(* Even Microsoft's migration of Hotmail made heavy use of Interix [UNIX] as a compatibility layer instead of rewriting the software to be Windows native.)

Treating Linux Users like a Disease

[LazyDawg]

Is great, because deep down inside we really are a plague. We have:

1. Carriers --> the pre-installed masses out there who love the OS and tote it everywhere they can. You can't cure a carrier with the M$ vacciene, because they're stuck with the disease for life, for free, and don't even understand that its a problem, because they typically show none of the symptoms.

2. Infection Vectors --> You can also spot evangelists, who might not be the best users or carriers around, but they sure do love to spread the word, show the symptoms of the "disease" of Linux, and make serious threats to Microsoft's soverignty.

3. Symptoms --> Ranting about Emacs vs. Vi, BSD vs. GNU, wearing funny tee-shirts, or having epileptic fits about free software costing literally nothing at work, at home, during spare time, on dates, etc. People who do not learn to tame these symptoms can end up becoming terminal geeks, even if they are recovering Windows users.

Which is probably why Microsoft sales people have to spot the companies with even a single Linux user, because they KNOW Linux will spread if left untreated.

They are talking servers, not workstations ...

[bockman]

... this is the reason.

The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for.
Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.

All this was already true two/three years ago, but now Linux is more recognized, also thanks to some advertising effort mainly sponsorised by IBM, and PHBs don't frown (much) anymore when their techs are proposing Linux-based solutions.

This is why Linux it is considered _the_ threat for MS on the server market.

Re:They are talking servers, not workstations ...

[mpe]

The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for. Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.

There is another bit, TCO definitly works against Microsoft here. Because the proprietary stuff was often running some version of unix. Thus moving to Linux means a lot less retraining and porting work for the company concerned than any version of Windows.
Effectivly Microsoft is complaining it's getting harder to exploit their customers.

Re:Link to Article

[grammar nazi]

Even though we can't read the article, there is really little for use Linux zealots to worry about. Here's why:

1. Microsoft's largest competition is from a 'free' (beer) product. Would you invest in a company that was competing with something that is free? Whether Linux is as good as Windows or not it a moot issue because Linux is free and Linux continues to get better.

2. Linux has no sole entity. Microsoft doesn't know how to effectively deal with Linux because it's not a company. It's a type of product that is beginning to gain significant market proliferation.

Basically, MS needs to either lock people into using its software before it's too late (XP is pissing people off) or it needs to constantly stay one step ahead of OSS (which is starting to get difficult).

What can they possibly do? I believe that better public relations would be a start. Now that Windows2000/XP is actually a nice operating system, they can focus on removing peoples ideas that software will constantly crash. Of course, at my work Excel 2000 on Windows 2000 still constantly crashes, but they have to fix that.

adventures in marketing

[necrognome]

"If they're the city of progress, why are they running Linux?", Brett jokes. "We're going in there to show them how much value exists in the Microsoft platform and take this win away from Linux!" Key in both accounts is the way Brett's team positions Microsoft's future .NET vision as well as providing great products like Windows 2000 to start building on that vision today.

I think Scott Adams was right when he placed the sign: "Two Drink Minimum" above the entrance to Marketing.

Hey

[Spackler]

"...where you see Sun machines, IBM, etc and ask them what they running on those machines"

Fess up Linus, you wrote this, didn't you?

Re:Hey

[Dirtside]

What they say? All your customers are belong to MS?

MS has been saying this since 1998

[MtViewGuy]

I think people are kind of forgetting that Microsoft identified Linux as a serious competitor at least since 1998.

In short, you're right: it's OLD news for most long-time /. readers.

For those of you trying to push Linux

[KennyLB]

I highly suggest using DemoLinux to show people how easy Linux is to use. It has a lot of powerful features such as StarOffice, GIMP, etc. and requires no install to run. First download the .iso and burn it to a CD. Make a boot disk using the CD-ROM, insert both disks into the computer you want to demonstrate Linux on, and reboot. The computer will restart and load X Windows automatically. DemoLinux also gives the user the option to install Linux to the hard drive if the user likes it. This is a great way to demo Linux to anyone, a business or a home user.

Not Yet

[Uttles]

Linux won't be "the threat" to Microsoft until any average Joe can put in the CD's, select what they want, install, reboot, and EVERYTHING works. The one thing MS is good at is helping out the user when configuring the system. Now, don't get me wrong, it only works for a couple of days, then you get the blue screen of death or some sort of conflict, etc. The simple fact is though, any person can install any hardware as long as they have the Windows CD. The computer says: "I detect new hardware" and asks for the CD, and that's all you have to do. That takes away from the user control, and that is something I don't like.

My main point is that I've just started to get into Linux and I really like it so far, but it's a pain in the ass to get everything working. I have a 6 month old Gateway with a P 4 and all widely used hardware, so the latest distros of RedHat or Mandrake should have no problem with it, but they do. I can't get my soundcard to work, my USB HomePNA device, and other stuff I probably haven't gotten to yet. I'm sure I'll figure it out, but I have a background in computers, it shouldn't take that to get a computer to work. That's the main problem right now with Linux, it's just not that easy to get everything up and running. On the other hand, the main advantage of Linux is that once it is running, it doesn't stop.

Re:Not Yet

[UncleOzzy]

You're missing the point -- the threat here isn't on the desktop. MS simply isn't afraid of Linux on the desktop, and with good cause. The conflict here is in server-land: shops fed up with HP/IBM/Digital UNIX solutions are migrating to Linux on Intel hardware; MS wants them on Win2K. The threat here isn't Linux encroaching on MS's existing server market, but rather devouring its potential market, which may or may not exist (moving your environment from Digital UNIX to Linux seems to make more sense than from the same to Win2k, doesn't it?).

Re:Not Yet

[truesaer]

Windows makes it easy to install a "default" configuration, but makes it difficult for the user/administrator to fine-tune the configuration or to make it do something even slightly unusual

Well, for the average person there is no need for anything but a default installation. Honestly, as a user of both Windows and Linux and a computer person, I haven't really needed to do that much to windows, and when I have it has been because of a specific piece of hardware or software and I've had instructions on what to do. I'm not really sure about how to play with the registry or anything, but I've never needed to either.

These Linux is hard to install arguments are a red herring. It's true that most users could not install Linux without help, it's also true most users could not install Windows without help.

I would have agreed with this if it were win98, but only somewhat. Windows for me used to always be a pain in the ass to install. But, someone gave me a free copy of Win2k a while back, and when I installed it I had to do absolutely nothing. There were no prompts, nothing. It just installed without a hitch, which I've never had from microsoft before. I assume XP is as polished on the install. Of course, its a purely default installation, but at least it was no problem.

I think a top priority for linux needs to be supporting hardware and making it easy to install new hardware. I think its easy to use linux, but sometimes getting the system configured for a new piece of hardware is a several day process for me involving a lot of web searching and frustration. It shouldn't be that way.

Re:Not Yet

[kin_korn_karn]

then you have people like the chief engineer at my dad's work (a galvanizing line at a steel mill)

They had an old ModComp mainframe that they used for process logging. It came time to replace it.

Kevin (the engineer, not his real name) chose a clustered DEC Alpha system with huge NetApp NFS drives for data warehousing. However, Keith is also absolutely scared to death of Unix. So guess what he did? He put NT on these machines. Why? No reason other than HIS PREFERENCE. Why this is on-topic is that there are many, many people out there that have input into enterprise level software decisions that make their decisions not based on hard data, but on what they "just like." They're idiots to us, but to the unknowledgable they're geniuses. Fight THOSE people, not the intelligent sysadmins of the world.

As a side note, I've met Kevin a number of times and he's one of the bigger assholes I've ever known (he mistreats his kids, like most engineers I knew back home, and has an ego that could crush Godzilla). I can't wait til his NT-based 'data warehouse' blows up in his face and he costs the company $$millions. Maybe I'll come in as a consultant to implement it :)

hehe.

Re:Not Yet

[einhverfr]

Linux won't be "the threat" to Microsoft until any average Joe can put in the CD's, select what they want, install, reboot, and EVERYTHING works.

So, it has been a success since RH 7.1? I have a friend with NO computer experience who got that to work with no problem. So yes, it is viable on the desktop for many instances (office suites still have a little way to go, though).

But Microsoft is talking about the server market. So the real question is whether any Average Joe Sr. Unix Admin can get everything to work easily... The answer is... Yes!

Re:Not Yet

[spongman]

was it on the HCL?

Linux needs an enterprise solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I was concerned by the mention of 2 (3?) account losses. One account where IBM was pushing the Linux solution. Another where the CIO resigned after (allegedly) being unable to deliver a solution on the Linux platform. I am not sure how true these claims are, but they are the stuff of CIO nightmares. Microsoft is not selling an operating system. They are selling a solution. Today that solution is .net. Linux needs a solution "story" if it wants to complete in this arena.

IMHO, I dont think that solution is Apache / PHP / mySQL. I think that the solution is J2EE. This offers a language and framework for building web-enabled applications end to end. Furhter, there are a range of J2EE solutions from free (JBoss, Jonas) to vendor supplied and supported (Weblogic, Websphere). Linux needs J2EE to compete in with Microsoft in this arena

Re:Linux needs an enterprise solution

[einhverfr]

Linux has success stories:

1: Amazon
2: Largo City
3: Many many others.

J2EE and PHP are both great, I prefer PHP and there are PHP application servers, but J2EE also has the power it has due to the large number fo developers that know the language and framework well, while most PHP developers do not exploit the language to its fullest.

The advantage of PHP is that there are a large number of OSS projects which can be quicly taylored to business needs rather than having to develop an entire solution...

For an example of something you can do with PHP, see: http://www.phpgroupware.org/

Re:Linux needs an enterprise solution

[Lumpy]

A CIO that doesn't have a proven team behind him ready to impliment the solution is a moron. Linux being 100% free, can have the solution ready to impliment beforehand. Set up a testbed on old or really low-end hardware. work out the bugs beforehand.

That's how we did it, we had the linux solution running way before the CIO mentioned it. when it was approved we had a 30 day implimentation timeframe.... we were done in 10 hours.

Sorry, the supposed examples are of imcompetence, the stuff MCSE's are made of.

(Ok that was a mean and intentional dig on MCSE's... I'm sorry.... {SMIRK})

The fault in the memo

[Chardish]

The problem is, quite simply, we don't know how Microsoft's salesmen are pushing Windows.

Are they lying about the capabilities of Linux?

Would you lie about Linux in their shoes?

Surely the MS folks must be mentioning Linux in their sales-pitches. I doubt it's very glowing.

-Evan

Re:The fault in the memo

[Znork]

Standard practice is lying, overstating, understating (compare the memos about Apache vs IIS security; Apache had one single flaw in the default install, and that one gave out some more information about the server than necessary (wether a user existed or not), and some flaws in non-default modules. This they wanted salesmen to pitch as equal in security flaws to IIS default root exploits).

Of course, they also usually grease up, preferably higher placed, people to be moles in most corporations.

Re:The fault in the memo

[schon]

The problem is, quite simply, we don't know how Microsoft's salesmen are pushing Windows.

Interesting... our sales department (we're a MS "certified solutions provider" or some such nonsense) got a recent package from MS with a CD entitled "how to sell MS over Linux".. it was all Word docs and powerpoint stuff on the advantages of Windows2K over Linux, and how to sell Windows into an account that's considering moving to Linux.. I didn't look too closely at it, as I'm not in the sales department, I don't run windows, and I don't really care.

If anyone here is interested, I could take a look and post their key strategies.

Not scared. Annoyed.

[bockman]

For the las several years Linux stole from Microsoft many customers that wanted to move out from RISC/Unix solutions to Intel commodities PC.
Now they are forced to offer discounts to win companies over Linux ( even though I don't doubt they plan to get back the discount money as soon as the curtomers are hooked).

Loosing money is annoying for _any_ company.
I bet that also in SUN and IBM there were (are?) people annoyed by Linux growing popularity.

Re:Not scared. Annoyed.

[mpe]

For the las several years Linux stole from Microsoft many customers that wanted to move out from RISC/Unix solutions to Intel commodities PC.

Linux didn't "steal" anything. Microsoft simply failed to be competitive.
In many ways moving from proprietary unix on expensive hardware to free unix on commodity hardware makes the most sense for the organisation concerned.

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000? ;)

[AtariDatacenter]

I guess the golf game they offered my VP wasn't too hot!

He's very anti-windows and wants to rid the entire datacenter of Windows boxes at every turn. (It isn't a religious stance, either.) It isn't cost... it is about them being a pain in the ass. A "win" is converting them to Solaris and never having to hear about them again.

sales people

[More Trouble]

What a wacky nut this guy is. Reminds me why I hate sales people, particularly crazy used car salesmen cum M$ Sales.

The question is, who's going out and pushing Linux like this? In my experience, sysadmins "sell" Linux in their organizations, not an external sales force. Unfortuntely, it's often the case that an external "expert" is more respected than any member of staff.

Re:sales people

[Junks Jerzey]

In my experience, sysadmins "sell" Linux in their organizations

Sysadmins do whatever it takes to *support* the people doing the actual work that keeps the business afloat. If they do graphic design using Photoshop and Illustrator, for example, then Windows or MacOS is the correct choice.

Re:sales people

[fishbowl]

>Sysadmins do whatever it takes to *support* the
>people doing the actual work that keeps the
>business afloat. If they do graphic design using
>Photoshop and Illustrator, for example, then
>Windows or MacOS is the correct choice.

What sort of work do you think SysAdmins do, that
leads you to believe they'd use photoshop or illustrator?

Re:sales people

[Junks Jerzey]

What sort of work do you think SysAdmins do, that leads you to believe they'd use photoshop or illustrator?

Reading comprehension: F

"Progessive Licensing?"

[Howie]

One of the 'wins' cited in the memo was supposedly one on the back of MS' advanced new platform (presumably XP/2k + nice backoffice stuff) and 'volume licensing'.

Is there some volume of licenses beyond which MS pay you to use the product? I can't see how else they can win on licensing.

The only other possibility is the licenses for what Digital used to call 'layered products' like the RDBMS are really obnoxious if you are use (say) DB2 or Oracle. Oracle is pretty expensive, but enough to negate the advantage of no OS/App licensing? For a whole site?

"Linux Compete Team"?

[malicioususer]

Evidently, none of these guys are in engineering. I wonder when exactly Microsoft's core comptency shifted from software to bullshit.

Brian Valentine

[geirt]

This page contains Brian Valentines (the author of the leaked memo) bio:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/valentine/ default.asp

Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000? ;)

[Ami Ganguli]

Well, not all managers are as stupid as they seem :-). They may have given up on your VP, but they'll try again with the next one. I bet they're on good terms with a few other managers around your datacenter though :-).

I doubt it.

[wirefarm]

Linux doesn't need to win to survive
Even if it wins, who cares? People who do Linux aren't motivated by profit, since they rarely see profits.
Theirs is a near-religious zeal, whether you think that is a good thing or not.
Linux will continue to get better, or bigger, or whatever, until it ceases to be Linux. Even when you stop hearing about Linux, it will still be there.
As long as one person keeps a copy of the source somewhere on a forgotten P10 server with only a terabyte of RAM, Linux will survive and someone will stumble upon it and become enamoured with the spirit of the whole Linux movement. And then it continues...
There will now always be an alternative to commercial software.

IBM Salesmen team? Ha!

[NickV]

"On the other hand, I've worked with IBM sales before, and they're no push-overs either"

Riiiiighhht. Like we've EVER seen good IBM salesmanship. I'm a huge Linux advocate but we need (and luckily have) more support than just IBM. OS/2? Man, IBM sales really wiped the floor with that one. The PS/2? Yep yep yep

IBM sucks at marketing, to the consumer and at a corporate level, although this has gotten significantly better nowadays. Let's hope it gets even better competing against the greatest marketer of them all.

Open Source Monopoly

[Alien54]

As seen in these previous two articles:

• The Coming "Open Monopoly" by timothy with 171 comments on 09:24 AM -- Sunday October 28 2001
• Software "Open Monopoly" by Hemos with 284 comments on 01:49 PM -- Wednesday October 24 2001

There is the possibility that Microsoft could face a situation where it could not embrace and extend and where it can not control that market, cannot monopolize it. Thus the efforts to outlaw open source:

• MS Wants To Outlaw Open Source: "Threatens" the "American Way" by Hemos with 1169 comments on 02:53 PM -- Thursday February 15 2001

There are two basic ways to get ahead in this world.

One is to build things up. The other is to tear things down.

The problem comes when you view the freedom and success of others as an attack on your success. While any exercise of power will use both, when someone goes psycho or nuerotic on the second, then you have a real problem.

It comes down to Microsoft being afraid of the freedom of others, or specifically certain people in MS are afraid of the freedom of others. Marketroids, etc. I'm willing to cut the coders some slack.

Since the company is the vision and living embodiment of the vision of Bill Gates, not him.

MS-bashing Site?

[FatOldGoth]

I think you'll find that The Register is an everyone bashing site. They can be rather cutting and bitchy, but they are also pretty even-handed about it.

Hardware manufacturers won't go underground.

[MongooseCN]

Linux needs hardware manufacturers to create drivers for their new hardware. If Linux is going to be an "underground" OS, then why would manufacturers spend time/money making drivers for it? Ya ya, so many people are going to say linux users can write their own drivers. Well there are plenty of pieces of hardware I would like to plug into my linux box that don't have drivers for them.

Linux needs to show that it's mainstream and not an underground OS, or companies will continue to ignore it.

Re:Hardware manufacturers won't go underground.

[mpe]

Linux needs hardware manufacturers to create drivers for their new hardware.

More useful would be for them to make available programming specifications.
Simply knowing the hardware does not mean that the manufactures can write good quality drivers for any Operating system (including Windows for that matter.)

Nothing new!

[SquierStrat]

Okay first, comments about this being a typical memo are right on. Big companies send stuff like this out all the time.

But also, this is Microsoft, they have been saying that Linux is the threat for years!

I failed to see what is new or news about this honestly? I mean, we already know corporations send out memos like this, and we already know they regard linux as the threat for years.

I thought the comment of Bill Gates that he created Open-Source (err the enviroment in which it can thrive) and that open-source users and programmers are all communists, was much more interesting. It's also on The Register for those of you who don't mind hunting - sorry I don't have the URL on me! :-)

Not talking about the "Average Joe"

[Epeeist]

> Linux won't be "the threat" to Microsoft until any average Joe can put in the CD's,
> select what they want, install, reboot, and EVERYTHING works.

The type of installation we are talking about is one like mine, where there are 60,000 desktops. This is where Linux could be a threat to MS, think of 60K WXP and Office XP licences to keep track of. Think of the number of servers you have to keep up to provide file and print. Think of the effort you need to implement and maintain PDC/BDC or Active Directory. Moving that from Windows to Linux could really cost MS a packet.

OK, Marketing it is then.

[IPFreely]

The sales stories caught my attention here. They brag about their recent big sales/installations as wins.

Maybe Linux needs a large advocacy site or two that specifically does these things:
1. List companies/organizations that have switched to or are created new uses for Linux.
2. Allow those companies to post their own progress reports, the good and the bad.
3. The linux comunity could provide anything from advice to development support for these companies.
4. Advocates could point to this site as a Linux testamonial and direct rebuttal to the same type of stories that MS uses. By showing the good and the bad it displays honesty (Which MS can't do) and by showing support activity, they see that there really is good support, and that bad senarios can be corrected with enough people available at your fingertips.

I know lots of this type of support is available through news groups and other channels. I suggest this specifically as a commercial/sales type operation. It should be big and well advertised and pointed directly at the corporate officer, with specific examples of problems found and solved. This is MS home territory. Lets get the battle off our terf and onto theirs.

Re:OK, Marketing it is then.

[Naikrovek]

That's a good idea, but lets not make it Linux-centric. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also great alternatives to the Windows Beast, and people choose those instead of Windows as well.

A page that has all Unix-y wins over Windows is needed.

But marketing costs money, and the amount of money that MS pays for marketing in one year is likely more than everyone who reads Slashdot will make in a year - combined.

Re:OK, Marketing it is then.

[IPFreely]

Correct on all counts.

Of course all platforms are welcome. I said linux because that is the one referenced in the article.

Marketing costs when you advertise in many standard media. Microsoft does that becuase they are generally fighting uphill (fighting against the beancounters because of their price and against the techies who know better).

Open Source/Free Software has advantages against both of those. The big one is a lot of knowledgable advocates. The best advertisement is word of mouth from people you know and trust. When your lead techs come to you and point to a web site (much lower cost), that is better than seeing a Microsoft commercial on TV.

You don't have to use exactly the same media. The idea is to use similar style, similar stories. Hell, Microsoft's own market research team has already spent the money to find out the best approach. Just borrow (steal) their ideas and approach the same people in the same way as they do. (Unless they have a patent on marketing methods... That would be interesting.)

This is SPIN for the judge

[Kefaa]

Microsoft and the current DOJ lawyers started with the economy card. Sue Microsoft, see the economy tumble. Next we had a judge whose orders were to settle this, out of court. Why? It appears she has a lack of both Anti-trust and technology experience.

Then in a secret meeting between Microsoft's attorney (a former Reagan appointee) and the lead attorney for the DOJ (a current appointee), a deal less restrictive than accepted prior to the trail was accepted without the state's knowledge.

This is an op-ed piece supplied for the consumption of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. As we start to enter the 60-day review period, this will give Microsoft more leverage to indicate they do have competition and the deal is fair. Of course, the exclusions put into the deal also ensure Open source will not be considered a legitimate third party to receive any advance notice or right to information.

In addition, they can force those who do have 'the right" to sign non-disclosures, under the guise of ensuring security, and sue anyone attempting to provide access to open source. Then they begin legal action against anyone who uses the information to enhance open source.

While it may make us "feel good" to know we are considered a threat, we are not. A threat is something you do not have a solution for. They have a solution and it is about to become a legal document by which they can exclude all open source from access.

Consider how far we could push Linux, BSD, etc... into an environment where merely communicating with the existing NT network would be considered illegal. A simple API change we cannot mimic or duplicate and they can tie it up in court for years. The mere specter of such possibility will keep us out of many shops.

Now is the time to re-read Ralph Nader's letter and create your own. Keep it specific to the agreement, factual and polite. This will become a legal document, not an editorial or slashdot forum. Revise, reread, and revise some more. When the 60-day period begins, print it off, and mail it. Start working on it now to be ready when the time comes.

Note to editors: can we put up a forum where people can post their letters for comment?

I cant believe you guys slashdotted the REGISTER!!

[HanzoSan]

The register gets as many hits as this site if not more and even it was slashdotted

Tatoos?

[Alien54]

From the register article:

Thank you team -- that's one less tattoo Mandy and crew will need to get.

What kind of weird marketing practice is this? Have they take to branding and torturing the sales staff to help inspire them?

Tattoos?

Windows ain't that easy, either!

[anomaly]

I can give two recent examples:
1. I recently upgraded vmware on Linux, which required me to change my video driver, because the vmware code for the video adapter changed. (Please note that this example works just as well when you upgrade video cards.) When I rebooted with the upgraded video device, my machine would hang. Apparently it's critically important to first tell Windows (98) that the video device is 640x480 standard VGA. It took several reboots to remove the offending adapter driver and get the machine working again.
(BTW - on RH Linux, when I install a new video adapter, the on-boot hardware detection routine notices and asks me to configure it. One boot cycle to fully functional X windows. If I didn't need to power down to install the card, it would have required 0 boot cycles!)

2. I recently acquired a Kensington USB video camera. Kensington no longer manufactures such devices, and has produced drivers for '95&'98 only. Users with 2000 or XP are simply out of luck. While I have a '98 machine on which I can use the camera, if I want to "upgrade" to a later version of windows, I'll need to buy new hardware.

(BTW - Interestingly, on RH Linux I was able to get the camera working just fine with xawtv. Here a device is not supported by the manufacturer, no Linux drivers have been produced, and the free software geeks reverse engineered the functionality and produced drivers, then gave them away!)

Don't even get me started on how dang complex all of this stuff is! My sister just got a cable modem and wants to set up a network so her kids can share the internet connection with her. She needs a firewall, proxy server/NAT solution, LAN adapters, cabling, ad nauseum! None of that is trifling, regardless of OS. (For her I'm recommending a dedicated device for firewall and a local consultant to assist with configuration.)

WRT your problems, have you had the opportunity to seek assistance from any newsgroups/mailing lists? I'm not sure that I can be of great assistance, but I'm willing to try. Please email me if you are interested.

Re:Windows ain't that easy, either!

[spongman]

one of the major selling points of Win2K is supposed to be driver compatibility with Win98

presumably you're referring to the WDM (windows driver model) that both win2k and win98 share. this is a shared code model for drivers for these platforms, but it doesn't require that the code for a driver on win98 should run on win2k. that would be impossible for many devices, the two operating systems' native IO models are completely different. it does, however allow for some devices to use layered 'class' drivers such as USB, serial, etc... and share code that way. it's purely a design decision on the IHV's part. if your hardware isn't supported on your platform you need to talk to your hardware vendor. after all, this is what linux driver writers have been saying for years (winmodem, etc...)

of course, now that XP's shipped and 9x is going the way of the dinosaurs (at last) IHVs won't have so many platforms to support.

Re:Windows ain't that easy, either!

[anomaly]

I generally don't respond to trolls or ACs, but it's late (for me) and I'm foolishly willing to invest the time.

Please note that I said I acquired it, not that I bought it. When someone is giving away free hardware, the driver compatibility is less of a concern than the cost.

BTW - I was able to make the camera work for my purposes both under Win'98 and Linux, so I'm satisfied with the outcome.

Still feeling smug?

This is not for real.

[n-baxley]

Do you really think that a VP at MS would actually say:

• "Learn about what they do with those systems, keep that inventory in your back pocket --
• hell -- tattoo it on your butt if you have to -- and go after them. (My emphasis)
  

I mean come on. Even if he's the VP of sales .You just don't say that as the VP of a major corporation.

Re:This is not for real.

[flacco]

Excuse me, but have you seen the "Dance Monkey Boy" video yet?

Just further evidence that how high you get in the corp is largely determined by how big of an obnoxious asshole you can be.

Re:It's scared??

[mpe]

Why is Microsoft scared of Linux? We don't have the leverage or the monopolistic power of Microsoft. They should really be worried about Solaris, but I guess Microsoft sees Linux as an entirely new kind of threat.

The reason is that the kind of techniques they have used in the past to squash competition simply won't work with something they can't either buy out or bundle into Windows.

Re:Not Yet : Oh, yes it is...

[Mudge Pinkerton-Bott]

I have been a Linux user for 4 years now, having had flings with Slackware, Debian and Redhat, while still being called upon to install/maintain Lose98/2K boxes every now and then.

Last week I dropped an install of Mandrake 8.1 on my workstation box, and believe me, it was a lot less troublesome a delivery than I have ever found with any version of Windows (or DOS, for that matter).

All hardware picked up first time, none of the broken packaging I found in four releases of RedHat... Everything just works.

I would say Linux probably is ready for the general user's desktop.

Petty Smugness

[ChaoticCoyote]

How will the Linux community respond?

Deriding Microsoft won't be particularly productive, and we haven't much to gain by simply assuming business and government will "get it" and buy Linux. If we want to compete successfully with the Beast of Redmond, we need something more than a cute logo and Slashdot rhetoric.

The importance of the subject memo is in telling us how Microsoft plans to compete with Linux. Microsoft is competing against IBM and Red Hat; those companies are pushing Linux beyond its geekish roots, into board rooms and server farms. We can preach technical superiority and reliability until we're blue in the face, but it is old-fashioned marketing, the art of the deal, that will break Microsoft's monopoly.

When we have squabbles over VMs, when we fight over trivial license issues, when we let the religion of Linux get in the way of rationality -- that's when Microsoft will strike, like a shark devouring a wounded penguin.

There's a certain petty smugness in the Linux community, a sense of superiority that stems more from a hatred of Microsoft than from our real technical achievements. If Linux is to succeed beyond its current niche, the community must grow up, maturing in both attitude and strategy.

Otherwise, we're just a flock of penguins, waiting for the shark.

Is it real?

[Florian Weimer]

In the past, quite a few NTs appeared on The Register and had to be retracted later on. Can we believe this one? Let's check the available facts.

Brian Valentine exists at Microsoft, he's the Senior Vice President of the Windows Devision. Would he address his colleagues in such a way? Why not.

JB Were's web site is partly dysfunctional, so not much information on this one. The City of Largo has just succesfully migrated to KDE desktops at the end of August. It's a bit hard to believe that they switch again after such a short time, and that his wasn't addressed in Valentine's memo at all (maybe it's about the servers, who knows, but then things would be really, really bizarre). Ameritrade has already been a Microsoft customer.

So, if this one is faked, it was faked in a much more credible manner than the previous NTs.

Re:Is it real?

[gorsh]

Brian Valentine exists at Microsoft, he's the Senior Vice President of the Windows Devision [microsoft.com]. Would he address his colleagues in such a way? Why not.

In fact, if you've ever seen him speak (as I did at the Chicago WinXP launch), you'd realize that note was perfectly in character.

Re:caring for the /. effect

[Porag_Spliffing]

I don't know that the reg would thank you for this. They are a very high traffic site, a little /. effect will do them no noticeable harm. Reposting their stories verbatim however steals the page impressions that make them cash. Nice try but wrong site to help :( IMHO.

I suggest you go to Their Merchandising and buy a BOFH T-shirt to atone for your sin.

Cheers,
R. (Not connected to the reg, just a long time reader)

Replacement tagline

[leonbrooks]

``I'd rather be myself. Myself and nasty. Not somebody else, however jolly.'' - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.

``Why be yourself, when you could be someone really worthwhile instead?'' - (no known attribution)

Linux Isn't the Threat

[shut_up_man]

A much bigger threat to Microsoft than Linux is market stagnation. 90% market share means you have to look to other markets for customers (Xbox, keyboards, mice, Pocket PC), try and sell your product over again to the same people (XP), or change to a rental structure (.NET).

Having salespeople trying to win business in the fractionally tiny sliver of the leftover 10% of the market "people who are migrating from unix to linux" is freaking lame - what about the rather hefty and lucrative segment "people who aren't migrating to XP because it doesn't offer anything compelling"?

Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%. Where are the golden oldies, like voice recognition, speech synthesis, handwriting recognition, not to mention all the crazy stuff that no-one's dreamed up yet? Where are the VR interfaces, massive dataset visualisers, database filesystems, all built to smash my machine into whimpering shards and only run on XP(tm)?

The only killer app driving upgrades seems to be games, and MS seems to be further stagnating that by shifting games like Halo to the XBox. If a PC version of "uber-Halo" required a P4 2Ghz & Windows XP, gamers from here to Osaka would be selling their livers to get on board, economic downturn or no.

So Linux? A tiny dot in comparison.

shut up man

Re:Linux Isn't the Threat

[jeffc128ca]

"Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%...The only killer app driving upgrades seems to be games"

Microsoft makes in money like the auto makers make thier money. By constant maintanance and upgrades. Cars are made to fall apart. GM doesn't make money on selling the car, they make it on fixing it and watching you buy a new car every 4 or 5 years. MS makes it's money from people upgrading to the new MS wizbang version X every two years.

If GM made a car that was maintance free and would run for 20 years they would be out of business. Same with Microsoft.

At some point in the cycle customers say "screw this, I am tired of paying". Then they buy a Honda and get Linux on their computer. If Hardware companies are smart (IBM, Compaq, Dell, HP, etc listen up) They can sell great hardware running this opperating system and give companies solutions that work and are cheap.

Re:Linux Isn't the Threat

[rfsayre]

Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%. Where are the golden oldies, like voice recognition, speech synthesis, handwriting recognition, not to mention all the crazy stuff that no-one's dreamed up yet? Where are the VR interfaces, massive dataset visualisers, database filesystems, all built to smash my machine into whimpering shards and only run on XP(tm)?

This would require innovation.

Re:Linux Isn't the Threat

[Sabalon]

A much bigger threat to Microsoft than Linux is market stagnation. 90% market share means you have to look to other markets for customers (Xbox, keyboards, mice, Pocket PC), try and sell your product over again to the same people (XP), or change to a rental structure (.NET).


The thing is they have the ability to do this with the majority of the application market.

Oh...you want the new version of Exchange with the IM and Netmeeting tie in. Well..sorry to inform you that Exchange2k doesn't run on NT4, you need to move to Win2k. And you should upgrade that PDC as well since it will let you use Active Directory. And so on.

The only trick they really need to do is to keep making sure that they keep interest in new versions of their applications and it'll drive the OS sales.

As for the golden oldies, isn't the speech/voice stuff in Office XP? just upgrade to winxxxx so you can run it, etc... :)

"PC economics model "

[jlusk4]

convert them to the PC economics model

Ha! I love this. Go with Microsoft, and you're on some sort of "PC economics model" treadmill. You pay what they want, when they want. Go with Linux and all you pay for is a sysadmin or two (or n). Very predictable costing: n persons' salaries, every year; no surprises.

John.

Referential findings on microsoft.com

[erroneus]

I went to visit the article and followed the links to the Halloween documents page provided there. I never actually read this set of pages before so I decided that I'd just go ahead and educate myself rather than relying on the concensus to set my opinion.

As I read the Halloween information at the site indicated above, I decided to re-read the "Linux Myths" page at Microsoft.com. I had read that one before in its entirety but I wanted to refresh my memory once more. As it turns out, the "Linux Myths" page is either missing or has been moved. So I searched using their search facility.

Entering "Linux Myths" into the search text box and "OK" I waited and waited for a response and eventually, the page came up with a header but a blank body portion of the page. "An error?" I thought to myself. I tried again with the same results. Then, I searched only "Linux" with the same results. Finally, I wanted to test the search to see if it was broken. I searched "Office 97" and was immediately given a long list of document references from the search. The search is not broken, it appears to be blocked!

Is reference information regarding Linux blocked at Microsoft's site intentionally? Maybe someone could test that.

Re:Referential findings on microsoft.com

[m_ilya]

As I read the Halloween information at the site indicated above, I decided to re-read the "Linux Myths" page at Microsoft.com. I had read that one before in its entirety but I wanted to refresh my memory once more. As it turns out, the "Linux Myths" page is either missing or has been moved. So I searched using their search facility.

I've tried to find this page with google.

I have that found page indeed doesn't work anymore but cached version still works.

lions, tigers, bears and sales oh my!

[f00zbll]

Although I doubt the validity of the email, it does shed some light into the whole (imaginary/real) platform war.

Even if the article is a work of fiction, there are some truths about sales, deployment and cost. First and foremost, what wins with management isn't the technology itself, but the perception of it's usefulness. Microsoft sales staff are highly trained at stating what execs want to hear. Most of what execs want to hear isn't technical gibberish about kernels, exploits, architecture, languages or other detailed technical gems.

What should we the community do?

• learn to speak human talk (non-geek techno babble)
• learn how to distill technological advantages into real value (not things like, you can change the code if there is a bug)
• learn what questions to ask, if you're given the task of convincing customer X to use linux. Too often geeks (myself included) are so enraptured with technology to ask the person in front of them "what do you want to do with your company and how do you see it fitting in?"
• learn to listen closely and see where the customer wants to go.
• remember customers don't care about open source and always try to give an unbiased opinion. Even if it means saying "Exchange is your best bet."
• put your customer's needs before "what would be the most fun for you"

I am sure everyone knows non-technical people whose eyes gloss over when words like kernel, port scan and ssh are mentioned. If the open source community wants to ensure a strong future, more technical people will need to spend a lot of time educating the average joe/jane about technology. Once people understand technology, the advantages/disadvantages become obvious. That is perhaps the best weapon against Microsoft. Knowledge is power and Microsoft will never be in the game of real education.

Whoa, easy there: it's marketing...

[Duncan Cragg]

Don't forget you're reading an email to:

WW Sales, Marketing & Services Group

Please don't go off on a story about MS running scared, Linux being not ready/ready, etc, etc without bearing in mind that these guys wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, wink and say 'today's the day, big-shot!!!'

It's marketing language: you're lifting your eyes up from sane, stable, calm Linux. Don't lose perspective...

Please...

Installability

[olympus_coder]

Several people have made comments about how linux will not be truely competative until any joe can stick it in isntall and reboot:

I work as a IT person. In the last two months I have done ~10 linux and ~10 windows installs.

Total problems that caused install to take more than 2 hours with WinNT/98 - 6
Total problems that caused install to take more than 2 hours with RedHat 7.1/7.2 - 1

I'm not the average person, but if you just want to pop a cd in and go, redhat is MUCH better than any MS OS has ever been (although I haven't been able to try the XP install).

Re:Installability

[jeffc128ca]

" I'm not the average person, but if you just want to pop a cd in and go, redhat is MUCH better than any MS OS has ever been (although I haven't been able to try the XP install)."

I agree, I recently tried installing a RedHat on a desktop I previously installed Win 98 on. I let Redhat default everything and it worked without any problems, including the graphics card on X which is where I thought the problem was.

The Windos 98 install took 3 days to track down the various driver problems.

Re:Installability

[donglekey]

I agree totaly. When I first started to really hear about Linux enough to learn about it, I heard people complain about the installer non-stop, some of it very justified. Now it seems that every installer is so flexible, easy and powerful that they are way ahead of windows 2000. That was the first thing that really turned me on to Linux because I saw this huge improvment in a high priority area. I think my computer literate but not computer savy friends could install linux if they wanted to easily.

Right Right Right!

[Greyfox]

I've seen exactly the same style of writing in just about every company I've worked for. They go "Here's where we're crushing our competitors" and they ignore the places where the competitors are crushing them. We pretty much know what Microsoft's focus is. If it weren't Linux it'd be Solaris and AIX.

It does make a great platform for stressing where Linux has shortcomings again though. Linux calendar apps which support multiple users still seems like a weak area. I have yet to see anything that resembles MS Project on Linux, which would prevent even the technically inclined PHB's who'd be interested in trying the OS from giving it a shot. I think we should also leverage the Linux strengths by tieing all the remote administration potential of the OS into some GUI apps which could be used to propigate configuration changes and software updates across hundreds or thousands of machines on the LAN, possibly using broadcast packets. Updating an entire web server farm with a click of a button would be a pretty compelling feature and Linux is more that capable of it.

We don't have to write those customers that Microsoft has claimed either. We should be out there talking to them and asking them what they would like to see in Linux. Ask them what the OS needs for them to switch to it. Such feedback would be very valuable for enhancing this OS.

Re:Right Right Right!

[Greyfox]

What you mean the nice professional feel like when an application stops processing its events and I can't minimize the window? Is that the professional feel you're talking about?

If only I could find a use for Linux PDA's

[heroine]

Maybe in the PDA calendar worshipping world Linux is Microsoft's biggest threat but I never figured out as many uses for PDA's as the computer science world keeps telling us there are. In the XBox, Divx world there's no threat as far as I can tell and no-one is daring to criticize the XBox.

Where Microsoft has lost the mighty PDA the case of dying a painful death of stabbing and electrocution if you don't immediately run out and buy an XBox has certainly been put forth enough times.

Re:No

[Chris Burke]

The latter they have been attempting (Konq over Lynx, Eudora ovwer mutt), but they have a long way to go.

Okay, now this is just silly. Your claim is that we have to act more proprietary, but your example of us doing so is -Konqueror- ?! Aside from the obvious fact that Konq is NOT proprietary (making the whole point ludicrous to begin with), then you can add that the app that it replaces is not Lynx, but Netscape. So what you have given is an example of moving from proprietary to libre, not the other way around.
And Eudora... Heh. Sorry, most people don't use mutt. There are plenty of great graphical newsreaders (you can search freshmeat yourself) which are - say it with me now - not proprietary! Hell, I didn't even know you could run Eudora on Linux. But you learn something new every day.

clash of cultures

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux can't be losing ground because it's not even playing in that game.

Linux will always be there for anyone inclined to put it to use (unless it's outlawed as a terroristic tool). Windows will go the way of the dodo the minute Microsft pulls the plug.

Microsoft is playing a second neural circuit game based upon "territory", where for them to win, someone else has to lose. (And for them to lose, someone else has to win).
The people who truly get open source aren't even concerned with such matters. The develop what they have a need for -- and share the results with others. Everybody gains in that scenario -- except people who aim to profit by creating spurious shortages by controlling a resource.

Linux: Bill Gates Best Friend

[AppyPappy]

As long as Gates can make Linux look like a threat, he can continue to say that Windows is not a monopoly. These "leaked" memos are intended for the courts, not the general public.

I'll believe Linux is a serious threat when Bill Gates tries to crush it like a bug.

Re:No

[SaDan]

Slackware for a distro.

OpenOffice for an office suite.

Mozilla for a browser.

KDE for a window manager.

There are plenty of examples of easy to use software for Linux. I use all of the above on a daily basis, and you'll hear no complaints from me.

Silly Microsoft

[Badanov]

I have been running a Linux server in a small (7 boxes inclusing the server) shop. Microsoft in my opinion has only one thing going for it in marketing their products and that is ease of use. Things like cost, that elusive TCO, the hostile licensing rules are strong reasons for going to Linux in the server market, but the biggest reason for not going to Microsoft is the data itself. I have read that once a shop switches to a MS solution, their data is owned from that point on by MS, i.e. you can't move the data to another application, other than another newer MS application. Linux on the other hand you can move between applications, and if there is no provision for that in your application, you can hack one. Can't do that with Microsoft. I wouldnt worry too much about MS going after large accounts and large headlines. It's the small businesses which create jobs in this country and they are always on the lookout for better, more cost effective solutions. Let them have the big boys. Once they realize the kind of corner they are getting into you will see migration towards Linux. As it is I have no real vested interest in either MS or Linux; it is just that I was horrified at their tactics using the BSA and all the other techonological means they are using to enhance their position. I have convinced my family's company that we should be moving towards chucking WIndows, and we are slowly moving towards a MS-free office.

Nice troll

[Brian Knotts]

Next time, try getting the name of the company right (hint: Ameritrade).

What if Microsoft attacks us on hardware?

[Brian Knotts]

If Microsoft manages to end our ability to have important specs to certain, crucial hardware, what do we do then?

I largely agree that Microsoft is irrelevant to Linux's "success." However, that one point cannot be ignored.

Re:Ameritech tells the whole story

[_Sprocket_]

I'd like to know more about this case. Actually, I'd like to hear the inside scoop on what happened - but alas, we're not likely to.

I've been involved in enough IT architecture projects to understand that the technologies involved aren't always the driving factor to a project's success. Politics does a lot to aid or kill a project. And sometimes projects are labled as "wins" when those with inside technical knowledge know that it was really an utter failure.

Its very possible a Win2k solution managed to flourish where a Linux solution didn't. But its difficult to really get an honest picture of the case from an internal marketing memo from Microsoft.

Re:What Happenned at Ameritrade?

[ravi_n]

The current CIO (no longer co- for the moment) of Ameritrade seems to have very positive view of Linux and open-source in general according to this article. The CIO who resigned recently was NOT the one bullish on open-source and Linux. Hmmm....

Grow or Die

[emil]

Remember that Microsoft is in a "Grow or Die" mode right now.

They have finally saturated the desktop market. They are trying to sustain growth in that sector, but doing so generates more and more bad PR as they crack down on the license terms.

In looking for areas in which to grow, the server market has become a primary target.

The problem for Microsoft is that you can only pull the wool over their eyes for so long - eventually, everyone is going to realize that what they are charging for can be had from other vendors for free (with higher quality as a bonus).

This fact will become even more aparent with UNIX releases tailored to run Win32 binaries (aka Lindows, etc.).

Regardless of how much marketing they throw at this issue, they can't change the fundamental truth behind it.

In a related vein, I heard a rumor that Microsoft is threatening the states that won't settle in the antitrust case with reduced licensing at high prices - supposedly some universities have been called and threatened with cutoffs or price increases.

I really hope that Microsoft tries this. I would wholeheartedly approve of the state and/or federal goverment throwing a few million dollars at developing alternate Win32 platforms.

Re:Grow or Die

[scrytch]

I really hope that Microsoft tries this. I would wholeheartedly approve of the state and/or federal goverment throwing a few million dollars at developing alternate Win32 platforms.

Then by all means, go donate the money. I for one would rather see my taxes go for roads and firefighters and shelters and such, not some some damn personal geek crusade.

It's an operating system. Get some freaking perspective.

Red Hat's Martketing

[einhverfr]

It comes down to senior management, and most execs are non-techie. Much microsoft advocacy is down from a primarily business perspective, much nix advocacy (especially Linux) is done from a primarily technical perspective; until nix vendors do a better job fighting Windows on the finance, marketing and media battlefield they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft, irrespective of the technical merits of the products involved.

Red Hat markets primarily to CFO's.

The basic issue is that people are migrating the majority of UNIX servers to Linux and Windows (Telecom being a major exception). Linux is picking up some of this market share and Microsoft does not like this. Microsoft has worked so hard to beat UNIX and when they win, along comes Linux to take away their prize-- server monopoly.

BUT-- businesses are no fools. Many prefer a heterogenous environment despite interoperability problems because it provides an exit strategy from a single-vendor solution.

That Poor salesman

[JeremyYoung]

He's trying to outsell something that's free to keep his job.

This is lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm.

Why are we being directed to read a private memo? Does a company not have a right to talk privately within itself?

Slashdot likes to act like a privacy advocate, but then you promote stuff like this.

Boo.

Re:This is lame

[mikera]

Interesting viewpoint, but I could argue that the right of Privacy does not extend to business transactions.

Transparency in business is almost always a good thing, I don't think it's a coincidence that the world's richest countries tend to be the ones with the most open financial systems and strongest lwas against corruption/monopolistic practices/insider dealing.

Taken to it's extreme, you could even make the argument that a company should make public *all* of it's dealings. That would make for a far, far more competitive economomy if the only way you could get ahead was by providing better products and services at a lower price. Best practice would spread much faster, fraud and corruption would be much harder and the endless political wranglings in organisations would be tempered by the need to behave decently and operate with a much fairer distribution of information.

Maybe I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but I think there are areas where privacy and the restriction of information flow can be a very bad thing. Business might just be one of them.

No offense, but...

[jmccay]

How do we really know this is real? Has anyone seen the email trail back to microsoft? I am just playing devils advocate here, but How do we know some didn't make it up the forward it to the Register.

Can we call these the Turkey Documents?

He didn't even write that...

[Moooo Cow]

"Some middle-manager salesman guy writes that Linux is *the* threat..."

Actually, his quote simply said that "Linux is the threat" - no emphasis. Then, the register's article leads with the quote, adding a Nazi reference ("...memo to his Sales Brownshirts..."), and adding the "*the*" emphasis. Then, slashdot picks up the register's emphasis, puts it in the article title, and attributes it to Microsoft.

It's not news that slashdot and the register are anti-Microsoft, but they both lose credibility when they manipulate the words that they attribute as quotes from someone else.

Re:No

[jedidiah]

Oh please.

Microsoft gets "integration" by forcing you into a single application suite. Deviate from Microsoft's own applications and you may find yourself subject to interfaces as diverse as what you might find on a Linux desktop.

Win32 does NOT enforce standards. Also, widget editor defaults do not constitute standards or integration either. Win32 developers are just as free to ignore UI guidelines as an X developer.

MP3 players are the perfect demonstration of this.

OTOH, both desktops are seeking to be feature complete in terms of basic applications. It simply doesn't matter if "other options" are lurking out there.

Besides, what's all of this "one true UI" crap anyways. The whole point of being "dos compatbile" (or equivalent) is so that you get the widest array of choices possible.

If you can't use your own interface under the "market leader", why even bother with it?

Also, much of Microsoft's much vaunted "integration" comes from restricting you to a single application suite. If you force Linux into the same restriction, it can achieve the same result.

The only real issue becomes whether or not you can run that spiffy new browser plugin or trade datafiles with your local cabal.

...and that's all the argument has ever really been about. DOS users were just more honest about it in the old days.

Re:Missing the point.

[rnturn]

``the point is that this is a _far_ cry from calling linux a toy, like balmer did not too long back.

The point is that M$ is taking linux seriously as a competitor.''

Someone at Microsoft may have just now gotten around to loading a recent 2.4.x kernel distribution on a test machine and finally worked up the courage to leave Gates and Ballmer an email about the test results. :-)

What bothers me about the internal memo, is the tone. Will they tout the advantages of Microsoft's products or will the thrust of their sales pitch be what a mistake it would be go non-Microsoft? I sure as hell don't buy things because someone took me out to lunch or sent me a T-shirt. And I'm lucky enough to work for a group of managers who are fairly enlightened and wouldn't be fooled into buying something at a discount that was going to cause a lot of grief. So, it'll be interesting to hear about what this newly motivated sales force tries to pull in order to win accounts.

``So M$ is using agressive sales tactics and doing their damned best to sell their product.''

Just so long as they refrain from lying or using the tactic that an HP sales critter tried on us once several years ago: Leading off the sales pitch by tearing down their competitors rather than selling us the benefits of their products. It totally turned us off within the first few minutes and they were never seriously considered. Sorry, but tell us why you're good and we'll make up our minds once we have the facts, thank you.

Linux and the desktop.

[mindstrm]

I think your picture is a bit too simplistic.

As for the common-man's desktop, at home.. linux isn't there yet. Common-man doesn't want to learn about administering unix.

For the workplace desktop... linux is actually there in my opinion. Not for every shop, certainly.. but it's there.

Largo is a great example. Yes, you need administrators who grok linux... but a couple of those and you end up wiht a HUGE, easy to maintain network of diskless workstations.

You say not everyone can afford a 60,000 gbp/year for a unix expert... please! show me where I can go work for 60k pounds a year!

The kind of person who can run such a network, let's say, 20 workstations and a 2 servers (for redundancy). does NOT have to make US$100,000 a year. This is not 'huge company head unix guy'.

Maybe he makes... $60k.

The costs you save on support and downtime can be staggering.

Microsoft sales are very, very good at showing you why the MS way is the cheaper way on paper. It's hard to refute. It just never works out that way in practice.

I'm looking at rolling out a new customer service center. Every clerk needs a computer.

Re:Linux and the desktop.

[mindstrm]

Ack. My previous message was cut short when I whacked the submit button by accident.

This is the pain that I have found in doing systems admin. When it comes to windows... as the IT Dept... the ideal situation is one where you can delegate as little or as much control over resources to each user on a case by case basis. I want users to be able to try new software without bugging me, but I dont' want them to be able to screw up their workstation (because I have to fix it), etc.
In Windows, this is exceedingly hard to do (Even though MS will tell you otherwise. They'll show you active directory and all that jazz..). In unix, it's dead easy.

ameritade.com = Linux/Apache

[eramm]

according to this page (last updated june 01)
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/illuminata/linrfpt4.h tm

" Ameritrade, one of the largest online brokerages, provides its primary web access through Linux--a substantial commitment given its 1.5M clients execute over 100K trades per day, for which security is an absolute. Ameritrade is also one of the fastest-loading homepages on the Web."

a netcraft query shows they are running
Server: Stronghold/3.0 Apache/1.3.12 C2NetEU/3011 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.4 OpenSSL/0.9.5a mod_perl/1.22

sounds like they still have some linux left in them.

City of Largo Still Seeing Penguins

[flbeachlf]

I've been getting email from people about this '
leaked memo' and wanted to let those interested know that in no way has our roadmap changed.

We were contacted by Microsoft, and they asked questions about how we have deployed Linux and what issues are keeping us from using more Microsoft products. We expressed concerns about licenses, and about the number of people that can be run on Windows in a centralized environment on the same hardware (about 1 to 5 compared to Linux) and how many more people we would have to hire if we moved in that direction. We had a short meeting with them to review the XP product line and see it running in person. We have some stand alone PCs that are running at our library for patrons and at some point those machines probably will be running XP, so we wanted to check it out. We also run some Citrix/WTS products on NT and wanted to review what their plans are for the future to ensure we can continue to run those programs.

We are still seeing Penguins for almost everything running here and in fact there are 3 servers sitting 15 feet from my desk that are spinning RedHat 7.2 right now and being prepared to enter production.

Nothing has changed...and we certainly appreciate those people that cared enough to drop us a line.

Dave Richards
City of Largo, FL (Yes, "City of Progress")
Systems Administrator.

Re:What's with all these tattoos?

[WildBeast]

If he really used those kind of words, the guy will get fired. Guaranteed!

Well..

[mindstrm]

When I demo linux to a business.. I need to show them more than 'look you can open a word document'.

If you try to simply show them a desktop, you may lose.

I need to show them how one fairly cheap server can handle remote desktops with all the neat features using a bunch of crap PC's. I need to show them how it will be much LONGER before they need to upgrade their PCs to run new applications. I need to show them that, instead of upgrading all 20 pc's in their network in a few years, they will only have to add a new server (and even keep using the old one as well).

And I need them to actually SEE this working, because otherwise they don't buy it.

Then I show them how, oh, you have expansion plans? Well when you add 20 more staff, with this system, you don't NEED to spend a couple grand on each person for a computer.. you can buy terminals from so-and-so and just drop them in.. and they will simply work.

Planned obsolescence

[ReelOddeeo]

Microsoft makes in money like the auto makers make thier money. By constant maintanance and upgrades. Cars are made to fall apart.....Then they buy a Honda and get Linux on their computer. If Hardware companies are smart (IBM, Compaq, Dell, HP, etc listen up) They can sell great hardware running this opperating system...


Yeah, except those hardware companies also make money from planned obsolescence. Dell in particular. Their motherboards seem designed to limit expansion possibilities. Particularly in regard to memory. IDE controllers that don't support big drives, etc. Why would a PC have an upper limit on RAM expansion that is only 2 times what the machine ships with? (i.e. back in 1995, a 32MB machine limited to 64 MB. A recent machine with 128 MB limited to 256 MB. etc.)

In contrast inexpensive machines built by mom-and-pop shops (my Linux machine at home) typically have 768 MB or higher RAM limitations, and that was three years ago.

Surely I'm not the only one to notice this trend in PCs?

Time to make some money ....

[taniwha]

gotta race up there and set up that tux-tattoo-on-the butt parlor franchise in Redmond ....

Ghandi

[redelm]

After reading the orignal leaked memo at the bottom of the Register webpage, I recalled Mahatma Ghandi's quote about getting the British out of India:

First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.

Microsoft has clearly stepped through to the fighting.

Re:Observation...

[DGolden]

Yes. Actually, Microsoft and Scientology have repeatedly been linked, and not just by the tinfoil-hat brigade. The german government, in particular, is deeply suspicious after the microsoft/scientologist disk-defragger fiasco.

It wouldn't surprise me if the clam-heads have infiltrated MS middle management. We know they control hollywood and the IRS, and controlling the OS on 90% of the world's computers would certainly be an aim of those power hungry hypnotised wierdos.

The scientologists are quite scary, what with their little fleet in international waters and their mountain full of weapons...

Re:IBM Salesmen team? Ha!

[Animats]

IBM once had one of the world's greatest sales organizations. They were famous for it. If things are now that bad on the sales side, it's really pathetic.

Re:Is the reverse true? No..

[namespan]

In a sane world, without a neurotic behemoth convinced that its survival depends on the erradication of Free Software, what MS does doesn't matter to linux one bit.

However, the parent poster brings up an excellent point. Microsoft is, in fact, everything I've described above. While obviously limited in their technical innovations, they have proven to be extremely tencacious and creative in coming up with practices that kill anything they perceive as competition.

They'll try with linux. They'll try to shape their contracts and the law. They'll try to shape public opinion. They'll try technical trapdoors. They'll try anything they can. That's how MS works: use any means necessary to kill anything competing.

And anybody who is interested in making choices about what kind of software they use should care

Re:What Happenned at Ameritrade?

[drix]

Everyone should take a peek at this article just to stare at these self-important CIO blowhards and their goofy pictures. Is this guy a jackass or what?

MS Wants To Set The Rules - Don't Play By Them

[Lethyos]

This memo talks about "winning" customers from one platform or another. Reading through the posts here, I see lots of people saying how they got "wins" by switching some server to Linux from Windows or UNIX or whatever.

This is the wrong strategy. This is playing by the rules Microsoft want to set. How about we follow the lead Linus sets and just do our thing and improve over ourselves, and not worry about what MS think.

If peoeple are wise and insightful enough to use Linux over other solutions, let them reap the benefits. Otherwise, lets not waste our efforts cramming success down peoples' throats. If they want to suffer with Windows, let them. We'll still have the superior operating system, and their increased costs will enact Darwin's laws.

We will lose if we play Microsoft's game. They have it rigged against us. Concentrate on code... write software, not marketing pamphlets.

"Our emphasis"?????

[PhilHibbs]

"Linux is the long-term threat against our core business. Never forget that!" Microsoft Windows Division Veep Brian Valentine exclaims in a confidential memo to his Sales Brownshirts obtained by The Register. (our emphasis)

That's bad journalism, in my opinion.

Re:"Our emphasis"?????

[tdye]

That's AWFUL journalism. Comparing MS sales staff to Nazi Brownshirts?

I never was that impressed by The Register...

Proof of the end of the world

[steevo.com]

"...Lloyd now has more body surface area saved to get that Windows tattoo he has always wanted!"

Is this the mark of the beast?

Re:Typical

[flacco]

Sounds like M$ has come up with yet another unintuitive user interface... Could any of you read something that was tatooed on your butt?

They're probably just doing internal testing of the next Microsoft license, which you will be required to tattoo on your fucken ass.

When did this become a fight?

[Junks Jerzey]

It took me a while to put my finger on exactly why this article--and many of the responses to it--annoyed me, but I think I have it now.

You know that Ghandi quote that people who take Linux a bit too seriously love? The one that begins "First they laugh at you..."? The wisdom behind those words is that once you become an active participant in a so-called "battle" of this type, then you have lost. The quiet revolution is one that eventually bubbles to the surface because it is _honest_. People going about their lives, doing what they believe in, is a powerful thing. It is more powerful that calls to arms and out-and-out zealotry. In fact, the latter often tends to get people away from what it was they believed in in the first place; they get swept away by the grandeur of the "war," and no longer represent their original ideals.

Linux was interesting when it was the honest bubbling up of what was perceived as a better solution by some people. Now that there has become obvious and pointless fighting between Linux users and Microsoft, it isn't Microsoft that has lost...it is Linux. All this energy devoted toward hating Windows, talking about Microsoft, putting down XP, and as a result a large, large segement of Linux users have become these aimless zealots who don't even know why they use Linux any more other than to crush Microsoft. And as such, Linux has lost.

Re:When did this become a fight?

[Junks Jerzey]

Trying to fight Linux is like trying to fight water with your fists. You can fight the container (Red Hat, Mandrake, etc.) but that just spills the water, and the well remains unaffected. (I know, it's an imperfect metaphor, so don't read TOO much into it!)

I think the Linux user base--and certainly the Linux zealots--are much more monolithic than you think. Sure, there are lots of invididuals and companies involved, but most of the zealots all have the same angle. You can play "predict the responses" before clicking on a Slashdot story and be right most of the time.

Sense of entitlement

[Weasel Boy]

I agree that this memo looks like nothing more than ordinary motivational rah-rah blather. What I absolutely adore is the sense of entitlement.

"EVERY propritary Unix server out there is a Microsoft sale waiting to happen, gosh darn it! Every time one of those faithless IT people swaps in a Free Unix to replace a proprietary Unix... they're STEALING our sale! That's money taken from OUR pocket! Linux is to blame for the tattoos on my ass! EVERY TIME ONE OF YOU BEARDED, TEE-SHIRT-WEARING HIPPIE SCUM BOOTS Linux, MICROSOFT CHILDREN GO HUNGRY!!!!!"

Rarely do large projects like this fail...

[gaudior]

... strictly because of the technology chosen. Most of the time it crappy planning, poor scheduling, lousy project managers, bad programmers, analysts, etc. In otherwords, give a bad carpenter the finest tools, and he'll still produce crappy furniture.

Large projects require extensive planning before pulling the trigger. They also require nearly perfect execution.

I have no inside information about Ameritrade, but in my career, I have been on many projects, including some disaster. I have been one to come in after the failure, and clean it up. I have also been responsible for causing failures. You learn from it, and move on.

Re:Rarely do large projects like this fail...

[llywrch]

Gaudior, you speak truth.

In my home town, several million dollars got flushed down the toilet on a lousy implimentation for a new enterprise software package for the city water bureau. (And much of that loss could have been avoided if the old system had been running in parallel with the new one.)

If it was just due to a garden variety daisy-chain, then there's little to learn from what happened at Ameritrade. (Except maybe get as much money up front when one accepts a consulting job with bad juju associated with it. ;-) But if this was just a garden variety daisy-chain, it would be useful to know this before the MS fan-boys started pointing to this case as a reason ``Linux doesn't work."

Geoff

Re:"Leaked" as in "free advertising"?

[flacco]

relax and watch as the media starts a lenghty discussion about it, mentioning your company's name 1000's of times.

The "any publicity is good publicity" theory doesn't really hold water when the whole planet already knows who you are. Why would Microsoft want a long discussion in which their company is mentioned thousands of times in the context: "Microsoft is terrified of Linux". I mean, who's getting the publicity there?

He is more monopoly now than man, twisted and Evil

[JeremyYoung]

"I can't do it Raymond, I can't kill my own father." - Linux Community

"Then the empire has already won, you were our only hope." - - Obi Wan Raymond

"IBM spoke of another." - - Hacker Community

"The other he spoke of is your twin sister"

"-but I have no sis-"

"To protect you both from the emperor you were hidden when you were born. That is why your sister remains safely anonymous."

"BSD... BSD is my sister."

"Your netcraft surveys server you well. Bury your usage statistics deep down. They do you credit, but they could be used to server the emperor...."

New laws

[HiThere]

I suspect that was before MS started buying congress.

The laws that have started appearing aren't about technical merit, and have no respect for it. They are about the purchase of a legal monopoly. The court decisions have been about the purchase of a legal monopoly.

Justice doesn't enter into this picture. If the laws were neutral with respect to legislators, then this would be bribery. They aren't, so it's lobbying. And legal. But ethically and morally it's bribery.

If the legal system wants respect, it has to deserve it. The current legal system has created a people that believes in "what you can get away with", because that's the standard that's held up as an example.

The best part

[photon317]

The best part of the original memo is when the veep appluads a random salesperson for convincing Broward County, FL to use M$ instead of Redhat for their 40+ webservers, including a quote of a joke something like ~"If Broward County is all about progress, then why would they use Linux?" hahaha.

Remember who fscked up the elections, folks? Yeah, they're all about progress, and they just made another stellar decision. :)

Re:The best part

[tdye]

Broward was one of the other counties that played a big part in the last election. There were two others besides those that were in play, IIRC.

Well, the response is obvious.

[Rimbo]

It comes down to senior management, and most execs are non-techie. Much microsoft advocacy is down from a primarily business perspective, much nix advocacy (especially Linux) is done from a primarily technical perspective; until nix vendors do a better job fighting Windows on the finance, marketing and media battlefield they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft, irrespective of the technical merits of the products involved.

Well, the business advocacy is very simple: Why pay for something you can get for free?

Linux service contracts are cheaper than Microsoft service contracts. Linux licenses cost nothing. Better security in Linux will mean less downtime, meaning more income. Linux also runs faster than Windows and has fewer hardware requirements. In short, Windows means substantially more cost in the short term and the long term, for substantially less revenue. If you want to gain and keep a competitive edge, you MUST use Linux. Otherwise, competitors who use it will drive you into the ground -- especially with the economy the way it is, who can afford to waste money on Windows?

Salesmen speak a strange language!

[PD]

From the article:

if you see Linux and/or IBM in there with it, then get all over it. Don't lose a single win to Linux.

Someone should tell that guy that if you lose, then it's not a win. It makes no sense at all to say that you "lost a win".

Unless, perhaps win means Windows. If their customers lose their win, that means that they REALLY win.

If I become a salesman someday, I'm going to play stupid head tricks with my fellow salesmen. For an experiment, I'm going to see if I can get everyone to say "come on and let's win the FUCK out of it." That would be funny.

very funny misconception

[3seas]

It's funny how not only MS doesn't realize what it is deaing with but that even a large number of linux supporters don't realize.

MS being fearful of linux/gnu/gpl is as silly as being afraid of the ground doing damage to the foundation of a house. Trying to dig the dirt away to protect the foundation.

Linux/gnu/gpl is a natural evolution of common open computer science/industry/application that is only comming into focus now because MS's distraction (which started with Bill Yelling Piracy) is being seen for what it is, a distraction of what would have otherwise beter evolved.

There is no way to stop this evolution, it's been held back long enough. And to add to this, IBM has begun to recognize the need to openly move towards auto-coding techniques - autonomic computing and an open source bridge tool eclipse

As a matter of genuine computer science and the core of autonomic computing there are the NINE action/function constants

In short: MS is trying to battle what is in essence genuine computer science, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we use abstractions. Inherently MS will lose, for even it has to use these in the distractions and distortions it tries to create.

The fact this direction is being called linux is perhaps a distraction from the GNU effort which is in fact just a label that is being used to identify this open source direction.

When talking to managers, talk money, not tech.,

[einhverfr]

This is a problem. YOu can't go up to a CFO and say, "Linux has X, Y and Z features that would be really cool for us to use." You can't even say that to the CTO. Rather you can say, "We can develop project X for $Y on Windows and $Z on Linux." Show them the bottom line, not the tech details.

THis is why marketeers market to the managers, not the IT personnel.

Abolishing the PC

[achurch]

Of course, there are threats to the Free Software community. The most dangerous one is abolishing the general purpose computer, i.e. a computer on which you decide which software you run and install. Abolishing the general purpose computer is certainly on the agenda of the copyright industry (look at all these copy prevention schemes), but it is not something Microsoft can do alone.

Abolishing the general-purpose computer is also on the agenda of a whole bunch of ordinary Joe Q. Users, I suspect. Do you think people like having to turn on their computer, wait for it to boot up, start up their Internet connection (dialer or whatever), wait for that to connect, and then start up an E-mail program before they can read their E-mail? If so, you're nuts. I expect that in 20-30 years, the PC will be fading away, to be replaced by either thin clients (think .NET but without the monopoly) or special-purpose E-mail terminals, word processors, whatever.

I don't claim that PC's will completely disappear, of course; I personally will probably keep on using one, and probably a lot of the Slashdot crowd as well. I could even see Open Source staying at least as common as it is today, with companies simply providing network connectivity / hardware and bringing in money from users. But remember that a huge majority of people out there doesn't have a clue what source code is, much less an interest in using it.

Re:What if Microsoft attacks on OpenSource Softwar

[wirefarm]

Except that they will have no power to say that certain things are 'no longer supported', the way that they can with all things DOS.
Now there are projects like ZipSlack and LTSP - I don't see how they can make things like that go away.
Sure, things like KDE and Gnome and StarOffice might get all bloated, but you can always dump them for BlackBox (or your favorite shell) and VI. You don't have that choice with Windows XP.
I can't see the Kernel gurus letting the kernel get out of hand anytime soon, either. Even if it does, there's nothing preventing someone from releasing a new distro based on an old kernel.

Re:When talking to managers, talk money, not tech.

[einhverfr]

So, start with the simpler things like DHCP backup (non-AD) DNS servers. Maybe some experimental file servers. Ask for permission to put up some demo servers.

An even more insidious advertising clause

[yerricde]

Well, it isn't theft really since the BSD licence allow that

Even with the BSD license version 2 that eliminated the GPL-incompatible form of the advertising clause ("This program contains software developed by Regents of UC and contributors" in all advertising), all programs using BSD code still must contain a little ad in the about box: "Portions copyright Regents of the University of California." Not only does this imprint "University of California" on the minds of bored high schoolers looking through about boxes, but it also gets people to go looking on Google for the Regents, and lots of BSD licensed software pops up. Advertising works.

I can see an interpretation of the BSD license version 2 that potentially infects software that uses BSD code to be free as in beer:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Re:Largo Still Seeing Penguins? what about politic

[flbeachlf]

Microsoft coming in here and trying to do a 'top-down' push won't work. There operating system and software would cost a LOT of money, and require many more servers and support staff. What we have now is working, and responsive and stable. Local Governments are really often about money, Largo enjoys a very low tax rate, and part of that is because of low IT costs.

Microsoft - its own worst enemy

[alienmole]

Wasn't that the time that Microsoft had disperate need to show to DepOfJustice that they still _had_ some competitions?

Yes, but if the Halloween documents were truly leaked intentionally for that purpose, it may have backfired on Microsoft pretty badly. A lot of people started taking Linux more seriously after those documents were released - Microsoft basically was seen to acknowledged Linux as a serious competitor, apparently in private and not just as a courtroom claim.

From a marketing perspective, this sucks for Microsoft. This latest memo does something similar. The more frightened Microsoft gets, the harder they squeeze to "eliminate" Linux, the more customers will slip through their fingers. I presented at a meeting yesterday in which I explained to two CEOs - one of a business with 300 employees, and one with annual revenues in the billion dollar range - why we were moving some of their key in-house applications away from Microsoft development products, and they were nodding in agreement. They've heard the news stories. Microsoft can no longer fight the bad PR, except by becoming a genuinely responsible company (and how likely is that?)

It's sort of funny to see the memos plaintively wondering why clients are moving to Linux. I suppose it's tough for Microsoft to admit the truth to itself: "because our business practices suck, and customers are sick of us!"

Missing an important point...

[alienmole]

as a result a large, large segement of Linux users have become these aimless zealots who don't even know why they use Linux any more other than to crush Microsoft. And as such, Linux has lost.

This is just the normal evolution of any social movement. In the beginning, it's small and consists mainly of people who understand why they're doing what they're doing. As it grows, it picks up "groupies", in effect, who are in it for the cool factor and because they see these other people, whom they admire, doing it. None of this affects the real reasons why the people who know why they're using (and developing!) Linux, use Linux. So the fundamentals haven't changed.

As for the anti-Microsoft focus, the reason for that, in case you haven't noticed, is that we're surrounded by Microsoft, and this is not a good thing! Everywhere you look, people are crashing and cursing their computers and fetishistically running scandisk and installing more and more antivirus software and wondering if their new XP license is going to expire before they get to a phone to call for renewal. Even if Linux didn't exist, people would still bash Microsoft. Heck, many Linux-ignorant Microsoft users bash Microsoft.

Linux hasn't lost anything just because it's seen as a potential haven and refuge from the most egregious monopoly that's been seen for decades. Linux can only win. In fact, the real virtue of Linux is really, really, simple: ultimately, it cannot lose. It is the operating system that the people of this planet have chosen to create cooperatively. Until all of those people decide to switch their efforts to something else, Linux isn't going anywhere, or losing anything.

Microsoft & Business Risk

[alienmole]

There are plenty of ways to sell Linux to top executives. You just have to understand how to do it. Using Microsoft as an application development platform creates huge business risk: a single vendor dependency, even if that vendor is the current 500lb gorilla, Microsoft, is never a good idea, especially when that vendor takes every opportunity to eschew and subvert standards. You might be surprised how this argument alone is enough to make many completely non-technical top execs pay attention instantly. Execs don't like risks, and they especially don't like them when they're risks they either haven't thought of before, of have thought of but don't know how to deal with. Show them a way to manage that risk, and they'll eat out of your hand.

Actually, we shouldn't, perhaps.

[Jens]

Because then Microsoft would know where to attack. Let them stay busy stomping on ants. So far, they've got only a few foggy ideas about where and who to attack, and they still don't understand the idea behind this all (attacking Linux will not help them, if Linux is at some point seriously weakened perhaps FreeBSD, or one of the other free systems will take over).

But why the hell should we point to Linux supporters so that Microsoft KNOWS where to attack?

Let them do the search themselves!