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...
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.
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
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.
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.