Slashdot Mirror
MS Struggles to Discredit Linux
PrimeNumber writes "The Register has this interesting story about a supposedly "leaked" email from Microsoft Windows division VP Brian Valentine. Although half of it is admittedly suit/rah rah speak, the interesting nuggets mention use of Microsofts "Sun and Linux insiders"."
The whole email is pretty funny actually.
Discredit seems a bit harsh. He just seems to be encouraging his peons to try and make sure that they beat Linux to the punch when they're dealing with their corporate customers, especially when those customers are looking at getting rid of their specialist UNIX systems in favour of PC-based stuff.
;)
He does imply that Windows beats Linux in all corners, but a guy's allowed an opinion, especially when he's trying to rally the troops...
What especially rings my "hoax/troll bell" is the last couple of lines about the message being "Microsoft Confidential" and how he can track any and all forwards. Give me a break.
This article is complete bull. Nobody will ever be able to convince me otherwise. It was written by a well-intentioned Linux advocate and sent to The Register because it would give the people of Slashdot a reason to cheer.
Nothing to see here, folks. These are not the e-mails you're looking for. Move along.
From: Brian Valentine
Sent: Wed 1/2/2002 1:14 PM
To: WW Sales, Marketing & Services Group
Subject: Me again -- Linux updates (part 2)
Our elite PI squad has managed to break into the linux infrastructure! Now, all their source code base are belong to us! With their source code, we can now see how they do things. This infiltration of linux will let us defeat linux, once and for all, from the inside! All we must do now is figure out what the heck all that code means... We would know already, but Visual Basic wasn't able to open their source code files for some reason.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Perhaps they should ban the cut and paste buffers if they want to prevent this sort of thing.
Lowmag.net
So what's he running now, Sendmail?? heheh
What a tard. You can't track if someone cuts and pastes it into a new e-mail. Then again, I guess we *are* talking about MS employees.
-brain
Puts on bad German accent (like on the one from Hogan's Heroes): "Dear troops. There iz a threat to us out thar called Leeenox. It is insidious; it may be in your very server room right now! Go out! eradicate the Leeenox Scum! Use our informants to bring zee traitors to heel! "If you forward or leek thiz email, you will be summarily sent to the Eastern Front!"
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
This email looks a lot to me like he wrote it and it was released intentionally as some type of stupid PR thing...
i hate pansy republicans
It's ironic that Microsoft is getting a dose of its own medicine. The IT department (which existed pre-PC) tried to get everybody to use their centrally managed platform, but people just kept buying those darn PCs running Microsoft software.
Well, that aside, I wouldn't necessarily trust the authenticity of the E-mail. Can Microsoft management be stupid enough to send out mail with big warnings "don't forward this"? Haven't they learned from painful pas experience that if you don't want it to get forwarded, you don't send it by E-mail? At the same time, the content of the E-mail seem in character for Microsoft.
Most plausible about it is the obsessive need by Microsoft to control the whole market and let no competition appear. And that's exactly why Microsoft needs to be reduced in size: there is nothing wrong with having Microsoft be a big player in the market, but there is a lot wrong with any OS or software vendor being the only significant player in its market segment.
WindowsXP AntiSpy software works pretty well. Anyone running windows xp might want to check out all the various ways ms "phones home".
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Maybe its a message to the linux community that its time to grow up. Look back at Amiga, Be, and OS2 newsgroups and you'll see the fine tipping point where advocacy gets stifling, annoying, and often leaves only the completely clueless fanboys participating in the discussion at all.
Personally I'd like to see /. evolve a bit in 2002...beating the linux drum is a useful practice, but a raison d'etre, it does not make.
Not hard to do, assuming clueless users. Just write it in HTML and embed a web bug. Every time the message is opened in Outlook (or Kmail) it sends a message home.
Best Slashdot Co
Honestly, isn't "discredit" a slightly harsh, or at least not-quite-right, word for this email? This isn't some mass-media FUD campaign; I mean, it's a motivational email to (presumably) a bunch of sales wonks, encouraging them to try and sell their products. Gasp, call the Justice Department.
It's not as if Linux vendors aren't out there right now doing the same thing, telling customers they're bug-nuts for running NT/2000/XP. I realize it's pretty funny and/or scary to hear him talk about "eliminating" Linux from customer sites, of doing "walkthroughs" to find hidden Linux machines, like some kind of Secret OS Police. But from a business standpoint, you want to sell to your customers, as much as possible. This is just a reminder to the sales guys, "Hey, don't let any sales opportunities slip through your fingers".
Don't get me wrong, MS has been Very Bad on many different things, but I fail to see how trying to sell their product should be considered some kind of Evil Act (tm).
It hurts when I pee.
This sounds like a big scary task force of Windoze suits equipped with page after page of FUD, moving into every client they have and investigating (read: Spying) their enterprises usage. Snoop out the linux and squash it dead.
MS Suit: and this box over here, what's it running?
Joe, IT Manager: It's a debian box I built that works as a router, jabber server, and sendmail server for our engineering staff
MS Suit: (Scratches some notes in little black book of infidels) Ah, I see...
Replacing his sunglasses
We will be in touch
Snaps his little black book closed and walks out
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
Theres one important clue here that points to this email as being legitimate. The lack of British euphamisms. The Register is a UK-based resource. If they wanted to doctor up a fake email in a conversational tone, it would have been written differently from the style in which it appears. Infact, when I was reading it, I kept expecting to see language differences, and didn't find any. Hell, to any self-respecting haxx0r, that bad-bad-doggy conclusion at the bottom of the email just begs to be disobeyed.
Even more true is the snippet about DH Brown being total FUD-whores. It says so right on their damn webpage, you can pay for the results you want.. Give em $1M and they'll tell that the majority of people surveyed think the sky is green, Windows is better, and we all ride around on invisible pink unicorns.
Bowie J. Poag
unless they are really stupid.
It's a simple trick - they sent out slightly different copies of the email to everyone on the list. Then, when the public version gets published they can reference the published version against who got what.
The changes can be cosmetic - slight changes in phrasing, additional punctuation, spacing, line breaks. Stuff like this would be pretty much unnoticeable without having a couple of different copies to compare against. Even then, it would likely be tough to notice the difference.
Add in 3 separate requests to "not distribute" as a tempting goad to the leaker, and the odds are that MS has solved their problem with that person.
Unless The Register sliced up the email themselves....
doubtless, this is the title that's going through rational people's minds.
/., i expect better of you - stop trying so hard.
not that MS can't be discredited in various other ways, but this story reeks of grasping for straws.
besides - the register? *shakes head*
come off it and get with it.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Gee, it's not like the Linux crowd has been trying to do this to Microsoft for the past 10 years or anything.
The ironic part being that this illegally obtained or (more likely) libelous story is a perfect example.
I think you're right; it was used as a scare tactic towards the clueless non-tech people who don't necessarily have the technical background to filter out the hype from the truth.
Back to my original point, I still think it's a hoax. Maybe it's just my cynicism shining through, but I can't believe that Microsoft is really focusing that much attention on Linux. The hype surrounding Linux in the media has died down, Linux companies are going Chapter 11 left and right... Unless the Xbox is more of a flop than I anticipated, I can't believe Microsoft is that concerned with Linux. I could be wrong, though...
Always consider that leak is intentional, and that you have been specifically targeted as part of a disinformation campaign. Ask yourself what purposes might exist in getting you to buy into the message. Be skeptical, it pays off. My own impression is that this message was too convenient and is attempting to convince me to underestimate Microsoft, or to misdirect me away from where their real efforts are. Just look at the opening lines - it's practically _begging_ to be "leaked". Of course, that's just my opinion...
It's not a double standard when you're discussing different things.
The Mac/Linux/*BSD crowd, overall, just tries to point out that the emperor has no clothes. In response, the naked emperor demands that everyone close their eyes. (Consider MS's recent position regarding the disclosure of vulnerabilities. I know, MS is targeted because it's more popular... so explain how IIS has more exploits than Apache even though the latter is far more widely used?)
MS, in contrast, has a repeated track record of funding and trumpeting skewed tests. The Netcraft "study," for example, had the best minds in MS on hand to tune the server. The Linux system, in contrast, warranted a single vague post to the incorrect newsgroup - they didn't even bother contacting Red Hat to inform them of the tests.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It's clearly a fake, and a clever one at that. You want reasons? Alright.
It is setup with a "man I hope this doesn't get leaked again" and ends with a mindless left-field "I used to run Exchange so don't leak this or...else!" intended to fool the reader into believing it was truely internal.
The purpose of the memo by the AUTHOR is to grab the reader with a flashy idea (MS memo leaked!) and then promote Linux from within. Read the center sections, they're an ad for Linux. Very clever, really. This gets the Linux community more press than if they just released an ad themselves.
The supposed "MS author" tells his employees how to ask about Linux, further giving examples of how and where Linux would be useful.
Just a prank intended to serve as promotion. Kudos to the author, but don't be fooled into thinking this is actual MS material.
------
Today's Top Deals
First off, if you think that the copy of XP that came bundled with your new system is "free" you are an idiot. The OEM paid MS a significant amount of money (the exact amount is never disclosed, but believed to be in the $100-$200 range) and it's passed on to the consumer. Same as the cost of the hard disks, memory, CD or DVD drive, etc.
But on the main point, your $500 retail copy of XP-server gives you the right to set up a server. But not to use it - that requires a client license. For every service. You want a database? Again, you need a license - and MSSQL is expensive. Plus client licenses. Ditto upgrades to the back office (exchange), IIS, etc.
I haven't seen price comparisons for XP vs. Linux, but I seem to recall that a Win2K server set up for a reasonably sized workgroup would cost $100k and up by the time you had all necessary licenses. In contrast, that $3000 HP charges for their distribution (which includes their own proprietary tools) is pretty cheap.
P.S., maybe you can find a NT MCSE who doesn't drool, but other studies have shown that you better have one MCSE for every 5 users or so. Your 100-person workgroup will need 20 MCSEs to keep it working. In contrast, the average load on Unix sysadmins in 20- to 100- users per admin (depending on the shop) - you'll need 2-5 unix admins to support the same workgroup. (You need at least 2 to cover vacations, illness, etc.)
Assuming each person costs $150k/year (salary, benefits, overhead), the unix shop costs $300k-750k to support. The Windows shop will cost $3 million to support.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Umm... Mindcraft not Netcraft.
chown -R us.
Quick point, that's "Used to run exchange" - i.e. used to be in charge of the Exchange department at MS....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Well... that's the nature of the beast, isn't it?
I've been on the inside of stories hitting various web news outlets before. It lead to some discussion amoung my co-workers, but nobody commented in public... even when such forums were available. What I knew could have shed some interesting light on the story... but it could also have cost my job. You never know how management and/or the legal department (not to mention PR) will react.
Because of this, its pretty obvious that verifying a source will be difficult. At best, the reporter breaking the story might have some idea of their source. But in this day of less-than-thorough reporting you can hardly expect this. And even if the reporter could be trusted to do some background checking, their job is likely to be difficult. We've seen plenty of legal action recently that should cause any legitimate insider / whistle-blower to hide their true identity.
Having said all that - I do agree with the overall post. Skepticism is good. We should look at any anonymous source carefully. I remember an April Fools joke from several years ago that took much of this community for a ride simply because the community believed anything put in front of them. But at the same time, we can't immediately dismiss anonymous information simply because of its anonymous nature.
Eh. I don't find this as particularly odd. First, I've seen the "CompanyName Confidential" moniker included in emails from other companies. And the bit about tracking forwards actually rings true. All this "confidential" and "tracking" speak sounds just like the Secret Squirrel games I've seen non-infosec people play. And it works.
The horrid truth is that even within the most technically advanced organizations... there are still a cadre of very technically limited users. And they tend to be found most often within Sales & Marketing roles (I know, I know... that's a broad brush I'm using. Not every individual in sales fits this. But my experince shows the generality tends to hold true).
It does not suprise me such wordings would be found in a legitimate internal memo. It would not suprise me if it was fairly effective. And it certainly wouldn't suprise me if there was an individual with the minimal technical understanding to circumvent these precautions / threats.
Anyone looking to see if all those Linux folk are still zealots w/r/t Linux v. Microsoft would only need to measure the response to a story like this. Do you hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of many fine folks wasting their time and energy on bashing Microsoft, their products, their practices, their religions ...
It doesn't need to be like this, folks. Speak with your wallets, speak with your advice to people who seek out your opinions, speak with your civil rights as a citizen of a free country (whichever country that might be!) Don't buy Microsoft products if they aren't any good or if you have ideological reasons not to (this is always your dime, as people say). If you're asked for your opinion on technology, recommend Open Source products if applicable or products produced by competitors of Microsoft if they are better, or if you have ideological reasons not to recommend Microsoft products. Write your senators, representatives, school board members, and city council members about your opinions. Propose alternatives to Microsoft packaged solutions. Maybe your solution costs less, maybe its more reliable, maybe it just makes the point of not supporting a company found guilty of anticompetitive practices, whatever.
Summing up: who cares what Microsoft thinks of Linux, don't waste your time on fruitless flames, trolls, op-ed, etc. that merely 'sings to the choir'. Do something that counts or don't do anything at all. Perpetuating the opinion of others, that all folks involved with Open Source are anti-Microsoft zealots doesn't gain us favor in areas that might provide some of us Open Source advocates money in the future. Its all about impressions when dealing with conservative (or even just fiscally minded) executives. A sure thing is always going to be better than the latest underground trend.
*Yawn*. The Netcraft survey is pretty meaningless, as it excludes SSL servers - ie every real ecommerce site extant. Take a look at the SSL numbers and surprise!! Microsoft have twice as much market share as Apache.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
If he's a knowledgable guy, he knows that tracking the e-mail via Exchange has some serious limitations. Knowing this, why not try to control the problem by making an idle threat? IMHO, he's not necessarily stupid, he just doesn't have any great choices to make here.
Deep inside Slashdot headquarters......
CmdrTaco: Come on guys this is BS. We needs some
news today. Isn't ANYTHING interesting going on?
Do I have to do EVERYTHING myself???
[CMDRtaco@debianbox] telnet expoitable.sendmailbox.ru
220 exploitable.sendmailbox.ru ESMTP Sendmail 8.6
HELO aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(250 times)
250 exploitable.sendmailbox.ru Hello debianbox.slashdot.org pleased to meet you
mail from: bvalentine@microsoft.com
250 2.1.0 bvalentine@microsoft.com... Sender ok
rcpt to: news@theregister.co.uk
250 2.1.5 news@theregister.co.uk... Recipient ok
data
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
To: WW Sales, Marketing & Services Group
Subject: Me again -- Linux updates
etc...............
Oldest Troll trick in the book.
Unless he has the message "Canary Traped" This is a fairly well known method of determining where documents are being leaked. Your format the message slightly differently in each case, not enough to change the meaning or even enough that a casual reader will catch it, but enough that each document is unique. You might use a : instead of a ; or leave out a comma or period here or there. By comparing the leaked document to your originals you can figure out who the document was sent to, and therefore who leaked the document.
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
There is a mailto:lnxteam in there. Send a mail to lnxteam@microsoft.com, see if it bounces. It doesn't necesarily mean the email is real, but it will debunk it if it's not.
Windows isn't cheap to support, but it's a lot cheaper than those figures. I have 150 users here, and we support them with 5 people (myself and 4 staffers). However, of those 5, 1 does primarily applications support (we have a lot of legacy apps) and runs the 2 NetWare servers, and 1 does mostly database work and development. I run the group and work mainly on security. We really have 2 people specializing in NT administration, and we're just fine that way.
;-)
I'd also estimate the per-person dollar figures to be a lot lower than $150k/person/year. I'd say a figure of $100-$110k for a highly-paid NT person (total, not salary) is still high, but closer to reality. The skilled Unix person is more expensive, but you _will_ often need fewer of them. Total cost for most shops is probably somewhat comparable.
I used to support about 100 Macs pretty easily with 2 people, so that support cost goes even lower...
Also, I don't know exactly what the OEM cost for Windows is, but I believe that it's typically well under $100 in volume (around $50-$60 or so, typically). XP Pro (NT 4 and 2000 Pro, as well) add a little more to the ticket, but most OEMs typically raise the price $100 from what they'd charge for the "home" OS versions for the pro stuff. At least part of that $100 is profit for the vendor.
Retail packages of the server OS usually include 5-25 licenses. But that's still pricey, of course. I can say that our Enterprise license pricing (we're part of a group with a bigger company, so we qualify) is very attractive - it includes the server CAL, desktop Windows (any version), and Office Pro. It almost makes Windows worth using
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Which are?
Well, for one, web-based "remote systems administration"* out of the box.
*in as much as Back Orifice is an admin tool.
It all depends on what you ask for. "Give us a report on how Linux costs more, in real terms, than Microsoft" and that's what you get, and it will all be true. Oh, it'll be estimations, and specific scenarios, and all that sort of stuff, but it'll be true, and it'll be internally consistant. Say "Give us a report on how Microsoft costs more than Linux, in real terms" and you'll get, again, a true, accurate report that tells you just that, with all the same caveats. Folks, for some of these projects, ten thousands for OS licenses is NOT a factor. Having a custom-written support contract, with phone numbers you can call at four o'clock in the morning that WILL be answered by YOUR technical account manager, who's ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE is to keep you happy with his parent company, however, IS a factor. In other words, Microsoft really isn't targetting the microsoft shop who winds up running a BIND server because they can. Sure, they'd like to stamp that out too, but they don't care. They're going, as the mail says, against Sun and IBM in the server market.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
that makes me think it actually is real is the following:
"We have the best d*mn sales force in the world backed by the best engineers in the world."
Only a marketroid would think that the salesmen are more important than the engineers.
When I first saw the Ballmer video, I thought to myself:
"Wow, that has been professionally faked." - I did not believe it was true for a long time.
I don't see anything in this email that beats Big Boss Ballmer in childishness, sorry.
And usually the big boss is acting more professional than the smaller execs, so maybe this email just sounds too professional to be true.
Maybe the real emails go like this:
Give it up for me!
IIIII LLLLLLOOOOVVVVEEE TTTHHHHIIIISSSS COMPANY
Yeah!
Lets be perfectly clear. MINDCRAFT set up a test designed to make Linux fail. This by itself is a clear demonstration of bias. Never was there a genuine justification for the structure of their particular test or it's relevance to servers as they exist in reality.
That test generated results completely dissasociated from reality.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
We're embarking on several initiatives in 2002 to deal with this.
-
The "99.999%" reliability program will be offered competitively to IT shops which use
only Microsoft software.
-
Presentations to Fortune 1000 clients will emphasize the migration path planned
for Windows XP and its successors, which will move consumers away from a
generic Web environment to one that requires
.NET-enabled web sites.
-
We will be introducing a new mail protocol in 2002 which will replace the
present "SMTP" protocol. This protocol will provide authentication of
mail senders (but not encryption of content) and will protect mail servers
from unauthorized use. The client for this mail protocol will be distributed
as an update to Internet Explorer. Initially, users will see no change
as a result of this action. But when ISPs transition to our replacement
for Post Office Protocol, our mail clients
will treat old-format unauthenticated mail as potentially hostile.
In high-security environments, old-format mail will be down-converted
from HTML to plain text, and attachements will be stripped.
Our intellectual property will prevent the cloning of this mail protocol, giving
us control of the worldwide e-mail system within three years.
-
We are working with PC manufacturers to develop firmware which
enforces a secure boot process.
This will prevent the loading of non-signed operating systems.
While any company will potentially be able to obtain permission
to sign an bootable file, we are working with the National Infrastructure
Protection Center to insure that such authority is only available to
U.S. companies able to qualify for Government security clearances.
With these new initiatives, you should have no trouble convincing top IT management that conversion to an all-Microsoft environment is inevitable."Come on, Microsoft is commissioning an "independent full-blown cost-analysis comparison", the final results of which are not going to be available until May, yet they already happen to know the results will be a huge boon for their sales team? Talk about a load... The Register got it exactly right saying that MS had commissioned the study by the "'we'll-conclude-anything' whores DH Brown."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The media hype surrounding Linux may have died with the various high-profile linux company's stock prices but that doesn't mean Linux has stopped making inroads.
An example of this would be Java. When Sun released it everyone was shouting Java this and Java that and how it would change the world yada yada yada. Sound familiar? Well Java news has been pretty slim in the non-geek world (or at least from what I've seen.) However, Java has been making big inroads into the back-end systems that don't get much media converage. One might assume Java had gone the way of many a dead language without realizing it's at work behind the scenes and growing.
man RTFM
No manual entry for RTFM.
Lots of SSL servers don't run an e-commerce site but are used for an extranet, or for access to internal webmail...
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
It seems that knowing the results before the "independant consultant" performs the survey is ... strange.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
(this is my first ever post)
I have to agree with you on that. I'm an admin at Leiden University and my part of the network, though small with about 100 computers and ~180 users, would cost about $10000 if we would install W2k and Office on just 25 computers (even though we also have an enterprise agreement going for us).
This would be all of our requirements as 75% of our desktops run Linux (who said Linux wasn't ready for the desktop? It's been ready for about 2 years now! And these are non-technical users too!).
We spend about 60% of our time on the 25% Windows computers/users however. So I think I can safely say that both in initial costs and in maintenance Windows is quite a bit more expensive than Linux.
--
When I mention problems I've had with various Windows systems, I'm simply dismissed (in most cases) with something along the lines of "sounds like you don't know what you're doing." Hello? I thought that, for Mom & Pop to have an OS that's Ready For The Desktop(TM) that Mom & Pop should be able to be drooling idiots and still check their email. Now we have to have fairly sophisticated knowledge of Windows to be a desktop OS user? Yet Linux On The Desktop(TM) has to 1.) support every known piece of hardware without requiring any computer skills or even any user interaciton 2.) have replacement apps for MS Office apps that support 100% of Office docs, 3.) an interface that's 100% identical to Windows, 4.) allow the rooling-idiot Mom & Pop to go buy Windows (and hell, Mom & Pop sometimes accidentally grab Mac apps; IMHO, if they do that, they really don't need a computer) apps at Babbage's and have a.) the CD automounted b.) have WINE run autostart.exe (or whatever it is; I've not use Windows for a while) and c.) have 0% problems running the Windows app? Oh, and if it's not too much trouble, have the same level of support for MacOS apps, in case Mom & Pop can't be bothered to read the label (or section headers in the store)? 5. Make it so easy to install, a trained chimp could do it.
Folks, if those are the criteria for an OS being ready for the desktop, not even MacOS or WinXP pass. Sorry.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
MS Suit: and this box over here, what's it running?
Joe, IT Manager: It's a debian box I built out of spares, and it basically runs everything. File services, web, FTP, mail, database, legacy apps, a few instant messengers, name service, firewall, proxy, virus filter, the lot. I haven't had it off-line in the last year. The other boxes are there to make the server room look good and keep the managers and accountants happy. I think some of them run game servers.
MS Suit: Could you repeat that, please? I can't write that fast. What's in an `F' teepee? And you reckon it's poxy? Why's that?
Joe (rolling eyes): We are out of touch.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Program installation is still a pain in the ass for a novice user.
/usr/local/whatever, that is if the package installs it there instead of /root/whatever or god knows where else.
In a great many circumstances users being able to install programs is a big problem with Windows. It costs a lot in support and sorting out the resulting mess. Also employers can end up being liable for their employees installing unlicenced software. There is actually quite a market of third party products to stop end users being able to install software on Windows machines...
Linux distros have a hard time focusing on a desktop only Linux. In reality, my mom could care less if she could spawn a web server on her home box.
This isn't "The desktop", it's a rather specific subset called "The standalone end user administered desktop". In reality even many "home" machines are no end user administered anyway.
Linux's configuration is too difficult for most people. There is no standardization between config files. No end user should have to learn a whole new language each time they want to change a simple option.
Fixing cars is too difficult for many people. Different cars can require different tools to service. But that dosn't mean that everyone must drive the same car... Because most people understand the difference between using and servicing/maintaining/building/fixing a car. Problem is that they don't when it comes to computers.
The filesystem structure is terrible for the end user. Putting an app in "C:\Program Files" or "Hard Disk:Applications" is a hell of a lot simpler than
Have the average driver identify the parts of their car engine. It dosn't matter if they can or they can't, since what they need to know is what driving controls do.
and Microsoft's targets are all non-M$ servers. But they'll have a hard time convincing all but the most naive IT executives with a commissioned "independent" study. I don't know about Sun or HP, but IBM has actual case studies for various industries to back up their sales presentations. And IBM will do an onsite competitive analysis using your actual and projected costs, comparing their offerings against your current environment and the costs of competing vendors. Microsoft better pack a lunch.
However, M$ will still be able to buy some business somehow. I can hear the CTO office conversations now....
"So Mr/Ms M$ sales-droid, why do you think Microsoft offers lower Total Cost of Ownership - that's what TCO means right?
"Well, our higher licensing costs include support that Linux doesn't offer. There is no one firm responsible for Linux - but Microsoft is there for you with support."
"I can buy Linux support for less than your licenses cost.... Why would I want to pay you more for bad service? Licensing terms that say you're not responsible for anything bad that happens to us by using your software, no way no how, never? Support that costs EXTRA, over and above licensing? Tier 1 tech support that needs help getting dressed in the morning? Added charges for Tier 2/3 support? And NOT TO MENTION most of our problems are caused by your own sloppy code, insecure defaults, arcane proprietary system internals, file format incompatibilities! Where is my credit for all these costs?"
"Er, Microsoft makes the best software; everyone uses this."
"Yes, everyone in our offices surfs the 'net, downloads porn and music files, and wastes time chatting online - all well enabled by your promiscuous everything-enabled Windows! And I have a dozen MSCE-papered dweebs running around fixing peoples' self-disabled capabilities to do that instead of work! I can replace that dozen MSCEs with just 2 or 3 Linux people tomorrow. What does that do for your TCO calculations, huh? Do you have any real answer to Linux? I'm very interested."
"Well, we do have some er, confidential partnership offers."
"Is this where you offer me a rather... personal incentive?"
"Um, why yes, now that you mention it. Do you have a non-US bank account by any chance?"
"(Sliding paper over the desk). Well, harumph, having dealt with all my considerations, on balance it's Microsoft here."
[I will be working on this more in depth later]
Notice the best thing about XP is already in Linux?
Users? Firewall? Services [I can change the OS!]? Themes?
Get your Unix fortune now!