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.'"
*chuckles*
Looking at that microsoft comparison page, its amazing how most of the Linux features and such that they chose to dog on, are the ones that were implemented in order to be compatible with M$ operating systems...
and they compare web servers on `SIMILAR' hardware... I'd love to see the test on identical hardware...
My p2-300 is SIMILAR to a p3-900... but they aint the same critter...
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win
--Gandhi
turn that around, and you get:
You pay more for it, so it MUST be worth more....
with that logic, paying the actual window-sticker price at the car dealership would actualy improve the value, quality and reliability of the car....NOT....
when will they get a clue, and face reality?? Linux is here to stay. Yeah, there's lots of flavors/distro's, but every distro exists because someone wanted it, not because of some massive scism in the development comunity. Mandrake is great for some things, and My old slakware box is still chugging away (1100+ days uptime!), and they BOTH talk to My win2k box, and they all share a network connection.
GET A CLUE BALMER! win2k was a decent try, winXP sucks. Give us useable and stable over flash and candy. Show Me a windows box with HALF the uptime of My slakware box, and I'll show you a machine that's been hung a year without no-one noticing....
Yeah they even talk about how MS has
Linux has Support for CIFS but only via Samba, not as an integrated, tested solution. They do not even mention the excellent Linux support for NFS. Also, they talk about how Windows has Integrated support for Windows NT®, FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, and Novell environments How does supporting HTTP or FTP make them so special?!?!?! I admit that Linux needs additional software for NT, Appletalk, and Novell file access, but most distros, if they are AT ALL meant to be used as a server, at least have HTTP and FTP! Many even have SAMBA and Netatalk.
/usr/games/fortune
Some decent comparisons there, but then, along comes the FUD, I guess they couldn't resist:
Let's skip the meaningless "Better business alignment" and skip straight to the part that keeps the bullshit detector pegged at 10.
I think the GPL is pretty damn clear. If you redistribute the code, you have to license under the GPL. And if you don't like it, you can choose to completely ignore the GPL (thus falling back to copyright law).
Microsoft's "licenses" (which may change during the next upgrade, and even change randomly depending on the version of the product or where you bought it from, and may someday change AT ANY TIME), these licenses DO NOT allow ANY kind of re-distribution. They do not allow you to use the product you bought any way you like (even though this may not be enforcable, they assert it anyway). And you MUST accept the license, it's not optional. You could be sued by Microsoft for doing something in the privacy of your own home. Like using the wrong kind of remote access software (or whatever that one was). Or maybe this week the license will forbid copying MP3s. Or maybe next week it will allow Microsoft unilateral access to your pr0n collection. Who knows?
The GPL is straightforward, written in straightforward English, and most importantly of all, is exactly the same in all GPL'd software. You know exactly what you're getting and can reject it up front, if you want.
C'mon Microsoft, nobody except a few PHB's are buying this intellectual property cancer unAmerican anti-GPL crap, so GIVE UP!
My favorite part on the MS site was the story about how the GPL is a pain in the balls because of the NVidia story.
The story where the guy was writing a driver, and decided to use some GPL'd code in the driver. Then, gee wow, he read the GPL and found out he has to open his source code as part of the deal.
The shitbag used someone else's work to make his driver, and then wonders why NVidia tells him to rewrite all the stolen code becuase they refused to release the source?
This is precisely what the GPL is designed to do, to prevent theft of copyright and the creation of proprietary software based on other Free software.
Why don't they tell the story about the retailer that decided to burn CD's of Windows 2000 for all his customers, come to find out the EULA says you are supposed to PAY for Win2k licenses, and had to go back and buy them all???
Chris
The whole IP thing is just FUD. If yuo use linux to run your servers you are much less likely to fall foul of IP laws than if you use Windows in the same situation. Compare the usage restrictions in MS's EULA and in the GPL (for the uninformed, there aren't any in the GPL).
And then there's the SpecWeb99 link. The machines compared is Windows 2k with RH 6.1 in Q4 1999. If you actually bother to go to the full list you'll find that linux servers are generally faster than IIS running on the same hardware. Sometimes being over twice as fast.
So no, this isn't any "fairer" than the last page. It's just less full of complete untruths. Instead it has things that are technically true but not the whole story. A quite nice example of content free marketing.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
"This potentially ties the OEM to a particular Linux vendor's distribution and its support programs."
"This can tie the OEM to a particular, potentially financially unstable Linux vendor and its support programs"
"With Linux, the OEM will have to take on the extra integration work to incorporate an add-in JFS or opt for a vendor-specific Linux distribution such as Red Hat, tying the OEM to that vendor for ongoing upgrades, support, and maintenance at an extra cost."
Wow, M$ saying that being tied to a single vendor is a bad thing, for once, they're right !
--- There isn't any problem that can't be solved by a small, low yield nuclear device, is there??
Microsoft got big by taking the discount route to software: make what the other guy's making, but make it for a lower sticker price. Since it's harder to tell a rip-off from the original when it comes to software, they made a killing.
One Linux exposed the sham behind their strategy, they were stumped. They had gotten so used to price-dumping rivals out of business that they coudn't imagine a product without a company. And you know what? They still can't. They attack Red Hat, SuSE, Lindows and the others because they can't attack the developers themselves.
Their attack strategy is like a hammer. It's good against other rocks, but worthless against a pond. How do you break the form of something that has no form?
You guys saw him admitting that Linux made them change their ways.
I read it as "The reason the cost of Windows hasn't gone down is because of Linux."
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
FWIW...
HEY! Do you need to setup accounts in 3 or 4 places to get the desired result? (See NT User account, IIS Account, SQL Server account, etc.)
HEY! Can Linux do BLUE SCREENS? - We can.Boy HOWDY!
HEY! Windows doesn't nave builtin BASH support!
HEY! Windows doesn't have built-in FINGER support either!
Sure, if one creates a bunch of propietary type stuff and wants to pride one's company on it...yeah the other boys won't have it.. but they do have standards. Ewwww...what a concept - standards.
Again, FWIW, I'm a web developer and corporately have to code most of my stuff to fit IE..but damned if I don't hate their "extensions" of standard things. Read "Bastardizations of standards".
Could it be that Linux is becoming a target for MS' "embrace and extend" tactics? Such as happened to Kerberos?
And to really get the rumour mill rolling: Is this why Microsoft has reserved a booth at LinuxWorld Expo?
My opinion? See above.
You should do the same comparison with the current and past states of Linux.
...
... to where it might work in Linux. This needs to change to take the user out of things if they don't want to customize it exactly. If you can remember Windows 3.11, there weren't many games(that were good) and hardware installations were about like they are in Linux now.
Debian - stable, secure, older, non-commercial
Mandrake - detects most hardware, easy install, somewhat friendly
Red Hat - Widespread, lots of software/hardware support, very updated.
Suse - ?, I haven't used it, but it looks good on my friend's PC.
Others -
You can see that Linux has the lead of security, but games and hardware drivers are still lacking compared to Windows. I can install a Wireless card just by pluging it in and double-clicking on a file in Windows. But I have to make/config the driver for my system, edit files, run RPMs,
But, if you give Linux 5-7 years, how many improvements can we make? There is a huge difference from win3.11 or 95 -> 2000/XP.
You know, for all the crap we give Bill. I bet he would actually be pretty interesting to meet. I mean it's HIM and not us (or our parents) that made a fortune selling products that the general consumer jumped all over.
I wonder if he reads this site on a daily basis just like the rest of us. I've heard people say he's not that great of a programmer, but I bet he still knows his stuff.
For all we know, he could very well secretly have linux boxes that he plays around on.
In the end, I believe that Microsoft will use some BSD variant similar to what Macintosh has done... I mean, they copied before and it worked... Why not follow the same philosophy again?
IF they did do that... I bet slowly and surely, a WHOLE LOT of people on this site would start to reconsider windows. Not to mention the corporate world.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
"He also addressed the licensing changes that the company put in place over the last year, calling them an important part of a long-term simplification strategy. "
.5 million + a yearly licensing fee. Managment nearly had a fit seeing these numbers and began looking at every possible solution. Now, some of the IT guys in the company have always tried to push linux to managment, the only downside is the switchover cost and converting a lot of our current systems over. They just pushed it under the rug and continued to pay the somewhat resasonable amount microsoft had asked in the past. Now that M$ has pulled this fast one on us, we're finally seriously considering alternatives to cut costs.
:)
The "changes" to licensing in the article have really hit my company hard. Were a medium sized company (400 people or so), should we jump on board with this new licensing thing microsoft has planned it will cost us
In the end Microsoft's new "licensing" stragey to implement their "Long term simplification strategy" will in reality force many of the medium sized smart and growing companies to search for more cost effective solutions. One of them being Linux/Unix. Once IT staff who were never exposed to the world of unix get used to the power of Unix along with its cost savings, only then will Microsoft start feeling the heat. People will become more reluctant to switch from linux (which is free) thanks to Microsofts new "pay us lots of money every year for upgrades to our buggy software" strategy on companies put into this situation.
Right now our IT staff is working around the clock to show managment that Linux is the cost effective solution for many growing medium sized businesses. Larger companies already stuck in the microsoft licensing trap will end up paying more and more each year to Microsoft and will eventually lose their competitive edge against linux which constantly is improving itself.
How are other people dealing with the Microsoft Licensing deadline (July 31st) in their company? Input is appreciated
Unix admins cost more than MCSEs, too.
I guess it's true - you do get what you pay for.
Does that mean Microsoft is better because it costs more than Linux?
Elsewhere in the document I found the phrase integrated application integration. I can only conclude that the author has gorged himself on buzzwords and succumbed to FUD poisoning.
Would it be unfair in this context for me to report what happened when I tried to post a comment to the varbusiness story? I got: If your car has major structural flaws due to faulty engineering and shoddy workmanship, would you weld a "reliability framework" of 2" pipe around it? Or just get rid of it?
Then we return to Microsoft's phobia of GPL virality: Implication: if the accidentally included code belonged to Microsoft, NVIDIA would have been allowed to incorporate it for free, and would not have "incurred substantial cost". I doubt that. Anyhow, this whining about "substantial cost" implies that the owners of the (non)plagiarized code somehow victimized NVIDIA. This is like saying that since you wouldn't lend me your car for my upcoming vacation, I "incurred substantial cost" renting one.
- Linux supports many kinds of authentication via PAM. The only uses of clear text authentication I can think of are telnet, ftp and r*. Any OS supporting these legacy protocols must necessarily allow clear text authentication.
- I think the complaint about "configurations of individual permissions" refers to some additional refinement of permissions in Windows. In reality, the Unix permissions scheme adapts fairly well to real-world issues, providing good security without too much inconvenience. The Windows permission scheme, in contrast, appears over-complicated, poorly understood by Windows admins, and frequently ignored/bypassed.
- Any encryption natively supported by Windows, except for the simplest symmetric cipher implementations, is highly suspect. Not being subject to peer review, it could contain accidental or deliberate weaknesses that reduce the entropy of keys of leak portions of key material. It is well known that the NSA puts pressure on commercial vendors to introduce back doors - they did so with Crypto AG and Gretag.
I'm not sure the FUD-filled utterances of Microsoft deserve this level of scrutiny. They are aiming for that narrow group of "appliance" OEM's who are so lacking in skills and self-confidence that they might cave and pay Microsoft for protection.OEM sales are poor and still declining and manufacturers seem to be stating that they haven't hit the bottom yet. This means that Microsoft's primary source of income has been diminishing and will only rebound a quarter or two after equipment sales rebounds.
Is OEM Windows Microsoft's primary income source? I though they made more money from selling office.
Since before the down turn, MS has been unprofitable enough to have to use creative bookkeeping [economist.com] including such as withholding dividends, avoiding taxes and cost shifting.
The way things are going it'll only be news when a large US corporation is found to have uncooked books...
Further, as their stock values plumment, they'll have to compensate employees with real cash...
Possible positive feedback for Microsoft. Assuming that Microsoft executives don't simply asset strip and abscond.
Odd to think that, back in May, a typical job ad on the MS site was couched in the following terms: LEAD PRODUCT MANAGER [Job Code: N05rc-an ] Be a part of the core team running product management for the .NET Platform and Evangelism Group. As Microsoft heightens its efforts to increase our mind share with developers, the .NET developer platform efforts are becoming increasingly important. Be a part of the core team driving our leadership with developers and winning against Java and Linux.
>
Job Location: Redmond, Washington
Back To Search Results
I think we're going to see MS "embrace" Linux and make it the kernel of its next OS...wait,wait, don't run away yet -- here's the idea:
:)
.NET framework (MONO) to Linux? There can't be any other reason, they know that if software runs on both platforms business will move to a the more stable of the two, so it could only hurt their OS sales. Unless they are planning to transistion to Linux and are going to use MONO as a migration path.
--OS X is doing very well, so building a propietary GUI over an open kernel isn't unheardof. Plus MS has always followed in the footsteps of MacOS. I think it has something to do with Gates wishing he were as cool as Jobs.
--Microsoft's security woes would be largly taken care of. All services are handled below the GUI, so they could just get rid of most of their buggy *cough* IIS *cough* software. And, since user accounts wouldn't own the entire system, viruses would have a harder time propagating.
--Why would MS encourage the porting of the
I know it sounds pretty far-fetched, but I think that within two years, we're going to see a version of Windows built on Linux (or possibly BSD).
This is a great example of pure FUD being spewed by Microsoft, they are blatantly misrepresenting the facts. In this case it's pretty much an outright lie.
Talk about lack of professionalism! Microsoft is a many billion dollar company, you'd think they'd have more professionalism by now. Then again, look at the current U.S. economy, it seems a lot of large companies these days lack professionalism, they're run by money grubbing greedy bastards.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I got pissed after the first point. With PAM I have single signon via kerberos, LDAP, SMB or even a grep on a file if I wanted to. In fact that echoed what I saw over and over in their comparison.
Linux has choices.
It mentions that Linux has 5 different JFS's, whereas Windows has one. Well...how come everytime the NT server goes down it takes FOREVER to run autochk, but the Linux box with the untested JFS comes right back up?
Over and over it was that Linux has choices and flexability, and where they couldn't find anything else, they would use "well...Linux doesn't have this Microsoft technology"
I'd love to see a page done like this with the same amount of FUD written from the Linux PoV. Almost every item would have to include "Microsoft does not give you a choice" or "All the choices are additional purchases from third party vendors"
>What *does* exist out there only seems to be able to
>recognize a (*cough* *cough*) Sound Blaster MIDI
>port. Any suggestions?
Although I haven't tried it with my USB MidiSport,
I understand that USB MIDI devices are supported in 2.5.
There's a whole lot of audio software for Linux but still relatively little to make it a serious choice.
I do really like ARTSd, but I have latency problems when I run it; problems I don't have running windows softwae (esp. Magix 6, FruityLoops).
I'm a total Linux enthusiast for the most part, but
when it comes to my music, Linux is not suitable to the task both because of software availability, and driver compatability.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.