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.'"
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!
"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.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