Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Admits 'Linux Changed Our Game'
wackybrit writes: "We've all known Linux has got Microsoft all worried, but they've always denied it. On Monday at a conference in LA, however, Steve Ballmer (of Microsoft) confessed that the FUD surrounding Linux isn't quite what it was made out to be. The Register has also covered the story in an easier to read fashion. They point out that Microsoft has just changed a page on their site which originally derided Linux, but now simply states what 'Windows does better.'"
Not like the old page that said `Linux only had 128 MB swap files' and FUD like that. This page actually lists things that Microsoft does better, in a mostly factual, hype-limited way. They're not trying to be really fair to Linux, but at least they don't pull things that don't matter out of their rear and say `see? we're better!'. The things they list are, at least for a large part of it, actually important, and things that Microsoft does do better.
As much as I love to bash Microsoft, they're finally doing this right. At least with this page, anyways.
While Microsoft's new page is a nice change from the old one, it still contains quite a bit of their same old FUD. Here's a nice tidbit from the very bottom of the page:
To ensure proper management of its intellectual property rights, an OEM must carefully examine an array of licensing complexities around the General Public License (GPL) that govern Linux. These complexities have resulted in embedded and dedicated operating system companies such as Wind River saying that they are seeing "a growing problem due to the growing uncertainty of using GPL-based code in embedded devices". An example of this risk can be taken from NVIDIA. An NVIDIA programmer, in the course of developing a driver for one of its products, used a portion of code from a freely available video driver. The developer failed to realize the code was licensed under the GPL and would therefore require NVIDIA to release the source code for its entire driver. Because NVIDIA did not want to release the source code to its commercial software, the company incurred substantial cost to develop a new driver that did not contain the GPL code.
Companies need to recognize that in embedded and dedicated devices, such as server appliances, significant gray areas exist in the implications of the GPL's terms. Some forms of code linking and commingling may or may not trigger legal obligations under the GPL. As Michael Scott and Michael Krieger, a lawyer and computer science professor respectively, recently wrote, "Rare is the month when a lawyer who specializes in technology does not have a new client asking for help in untangling an open source code problem".
In other words, they are still yelling "GPL bad! MS good!", they're just using a more dignified approach now.
I find it especially telling to look at the example they used. They place all the blame for the NVIDIA programmer's mistake on the GPL. I'm sorry, but if you are going to use someone else's code in your program, it is your fault if you don't abide by their rules, not theirs.
I followed the link towards the bottom of the ms/linux comaprison where it says ms makes a better web server platform. The benchmark they are quoting is over 1 1/2 years old and show that the ms based system had faster hardware.
Run your operating system on faster hardware then claim it is faster than the opposition. One way to get benchmarks in your favour.
Wow, I just took a look at the top three items of the Win2k/Linux comparisons, and it's really good FUD:
Linux:
- No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwordsone for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX.
What? Have you ever heard about OpenLDAP? Kerberos? Samba? even NIS allows you to do that!
- Support for CIFS but only via Samba, not as an integrated, tested solution.
Not integrated and tested by who?? HP, NEC, SGI, IBM, Apple... all them sell Samba based solutions. I'm quite sure that Samba implementation of CIFS is way betters than MS's, well known for being broken and quite buggy...(on purpose maybe?)
- [...]it is questionable whether commercial Linux vendors will be around to provide support in the long term, [...]
<sarcasm>Yea, I'm sure IBM, HP, Sun, Dell, Intel, and SGI will all go out of business next week... and then, I will not be able to contact any other linux Company, that will not have access to the src, and will not be able to provide support for my uber-closed Linux systems</sarcasm>
Win2k:
- Integrated support for Windows NT®, FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, and Novell environments, which enables consolidated administration in heterogeneous networks. Wow! They have "integrated support" for FTP and HTTP!!! OMG!
And you only need to patch it every 5min!
<sarcasm>I doubt that any OSS operating system will ever match that level of astounding functionality</sarcasm>
Not to mention that MS ftpd is one of the worst ftp implementations I have ever seen.
BTW, have you every tried to get Appletalk working on Win2k? I had to do it once, I would prefer to burn in hell for the rest of eternity than having to do it again...
I will not bother with the rest of the list... but it's funny how people can bluntly lie like this and get away with it... *sigh*
Enough time wasted with this, I'm going back to work with my "inferior" OS, that saves my company loads of money, not to mention headaches... thanks God that I have a smart boss(hi Carl!) that isn't fooled by shit like this...
\\Uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
I am not going to go through every point MSFT has on that page, but what I hope to show is that they are not changing their strategy, just their tactics to carry out the strategy.
It used to be that MSFT FUD was a set of bald faced lies, apparently the hope was that no one would check them out at all. Well people did, found out they were lies and went to Linux.
All of the new MSFT FUD is now more subtle, and appears to have supporting material in some cases. Now you can even check this stuff out, and if you are not very knowledgeable about software you can be fooled.
Point 1
Sum up as "Linux/Samba is not really compatible with Windows networking."
In fact Linux, and Samba do support almost all features of CIFS. When Samba has been incompatible it is because MSFT changed their implementation. For this matter, Win95 and Win98 are incompatible with W2K CIFS networking.
Point 2
Sum up as "Linux is not fully compatible with Active Directory"
True enough, but Linux is compatible to the extent that Active Directory is compatible with LDAP. In truth, MSFT is the one failing to comply with existing standards...neat how they twist this one around.
Point 5
Sum up as "IIS 5 is faster than Linux for SpecWeb99"
This is just FUD. The link they point to seems to agree with their assertion but how about this link instead. It sure seems to tell a different story on identically configured hardware.
Point 11
Sum up as "Windows has reliable drivers that are signed by MSFT, Linux doesn't"
Windows has NEVER had reliable drivers. Not all the best drivers are signed by MSFT if at all.
The situation is only somewhat better than Windows for Linux to be fair. First off most drivers are delivered with an MD5 checksum, which is good enough for most uses. Secondly you get the source most of the time. Finally, since when has NASA written drivers for MSFT ? (Thanks to Don Becker, NASA GSFC.)
Point 16
My favorite..."The GPL is nasty and dangerous and can force you to give away all your secrets."
First off the GPL is easy to understand, and very consistent. You get quite a lot for a simple price, "our changes to the code are to be made public with your codes binary release."
MSFT has a problem with this because they are in the business of keeping code secret, not open sharing of ideas. Frankly that is OK, and can be a fair way to do business, despite what many OSS evangelists will tell you. What it fails to be however is an advantage to the consumer of the final product.
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
you will be asked to remove the GPLd code you used. If you remove that code you will not lose your rights to the other code because:
a) the fsf and its general council have clearly stated that they will give people chance to remove GPLed code.
b) no court will force you to surrender your code if you stop the breach of the GPL.
So the whole "you may accidentaly lose all your IP" story is a bunch of bs.
The problem is that (as far as I know, someone with more experience, please correct me) if it was compiled with gcc, it's GPL software.
Wrong. GPL only "infects" a software project when code is linked in, either dynamically or statically.
LGPL relaxes this restriction by allowing a non-GPL software to dynamically link with a LGPL library, thus ensuring the freedom of the library, but allowing non-free software to be built against it.
LGPL was the pragmatic compromise, and the GPL remains the most idealistic license.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
you cant compare a webserver running on a win2k box, and a webserver running on a win2k through WMWare, through SCO. A virtual machine will allways be slower than the host-machine running the virtual machine.
:P)
Try to reinstall your computer with only your SCO disto. Then you will see the difference.
(hmm, was your comment suppose to be funny?
--
The problem is that (as far as I know, someone with more experience, please correct me) if it was compiled with gcc, it's GPL software.
No if you write original code and compile it with gcc you as the copyright holder can lience it however you like.
You might think of the GPL whatever you want, but there are 2 undeniable facts:
1) It does not randomly change like Microosft's EULAs
2) All restrictions that apply to GPL also apply to MS EULAs (but not vice-versa, obviously).
People should go read the original VARBusiness article and not just the 'summary' at The Register. Ballmer only admits that you pay less for Linux then for Windows. He'ld be stupid not to admit that since anyone who can count can tell that. He still claims that you get more value out of Windows. He even invokes "lower cost of ownership". All this means is that Microsoft is switching to use the same arguments against Linux that Sun, Oracle, and others have tried to use against Microsoft over the years. This probably means that they are losing on the 'basically suitable for task' technical discussions. That in itself should be considered a win for Linux and Opensource.
From the VARBusiness article:
Instead of leading with price, the company has changed its
go-to-market strategy to present a value proposition to customers and
partners to explain why a solution from Microsoft delivers more
capability at an appropriate price.
"We are actually having to learn how to say, 'We may have a high price
on this one, but look at the additional value and how that value
actually leads to a lower cost of ownership despite the fact that our
price may be higher,'" he said.
There's always acl.bestbits.at for Linux ACL support. Also, RSBAC (rsbac.org) patches allow Linux to support more fine grained and advanced authorization mechanisms than Windows does.