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.'"
The devil is not nicer, he is just trying to improve his appearence to seduce people easier.
My favourite Steve Ballmer quote from this article:
"We haven't figured out how to be lower priced than Linux"
(:
Ladies, form queue here -->
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.
Ballmer now concedes that MS execs "haven't figured out how to be lower-priced than Linux.
You keep them on that task Ballmer. And let me know when they figure out how to be lower-priced than free. My bet, it'll take them a while.
This happened in 1998, but only inside MS.
... ... Availability/Reliability ... Scaleability/Performance ... Interoperability ...
I'm amazed they're doing what they now are.
From the (http://opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.php) anotated halloween docs, which were leaked in 1998:
------
Here are some notable quotes from the document, with hotlinks to where they are embedded. It's helpful to know that ``OSS'' is the author's abbreviation for ``Open Source Software''.
* Linux represents a best-of-breed UNIX, that is trusted in mission critical applications, and - due to it's open source code - has a long term credibility which exceeds many other competitive OS's.
* Most of the primary apps that people require when they move to Linux are already available for free. This includes web servers, POP clients, mail servers, text editors, etc
* An advanced Win32 GUI user would have a short learning cycle to become productive [under Linux].
* I previously had IE4/NT4 on the same box and by comparison the combination of Linux / Navigator ran at least 30-40% faster when rendering simple HTML + graphics.
* Long term, my simple experiments do indicate that Linux has a chance at the desktop market
* Consumers Love It.
* Linux's (real and perceived) virtues over Windows NT include: Customization
* Linux is emerging as a key operating system in the nascent thin server market
* Using today's server requirements, Linux is a credible alternative to commercial developed servers in many, high volume applications.
* The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.
* Note, however, that Compaq and Dell merely have to credibly threaten Linux adoption in order to push for lower OEM OS pricing.
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....
I have seen comparisons over the years of various forms of Win32 compared to various commercial Unix variants, cost wise, and it has always been my impression that once you get to more than a few users, or into serious serving, Win32 was more expensive than Unix. Win32 only one for small print or email servers, that kind of thing, say for an office with 10 clients. It all came down to Win32 per-seat charges, where Unix has always had unlimited sendmail and print servers.
Is / was this actually true? Did / does it also apply to databases and other packages which have per-seat charges? I realize hardware confuses the comparisons, because commerical Unix has always been tied to specific hardware, making it hard to separate the prices.
Probably not phrased right. I personally have avoided M$ products as much as possible, because first, they have been obnoxiously buggy, second, they have only been useful if you want to do things their way, not if you want to do things just a little bit different, and lastly, because they have lousy business ethics. So I don't have any real world knowledge of how much Win32 systems cost. I am just curious about general cost comparisons.
Infuriate left and right
Except that it is incorrect. Well, not so much incorrect as highly unlikely. In the unlikely event that a business tries to use GPL sourcecode for a closed-source commercial application, and in the event that they get caught, they are overwhelmingly more likely to either remove the offending code and replace it with their own, use similar BSD licensed code, or fight tooth and nail with lawyers until the product is obsolete and doesn't matter anymore.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
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!
We've all known Linux has got Microsoft all worried, but they've always denied it.
Umm... no, the haven't. Anyone who remembers the Halloween documents (and the subsequent Microsoft statement saying "ya, those were real") knows that they have always considered it a threat and they've made no secret of it.
In the words of the Wolf from Pulp Fiction: "Let's not start sucking each others dicks just yet."
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
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.
As much as I love this quote, and it is appropriate here, I worry about the unwritten part of this quote.
Ghandi gained India's independence, only to see his countrymen turn against each other (can you say muslem vs. hindu).
I hope there will be no parallel in our movement.
This idea is responsive. It attracted people like me to business and Slashdot in the first place. That they are new is almost beside the point. How will proprietary freedom be curbed, and Ballmer developed, in regimes that are interesting and repressive? Why would these interesting governments support the use of Microsoft to destroy an open society any more than they would sanction interesting business or abandon censorship?
Free Software is the hippest political idea around at the moment, perhaps because it has been hijacked so completely by the multinationals. Herd-like college kids and new political activists associate experience with a broad range of information, from cultural imperialism to Free Software to fascinating system.
But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the Microsoft and Free Software worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the fascinating information.
Proven, comprehensive operating system platforms delivering seamless integration, industry-leading scalability and performance, broad application support, and solid reliability.
Yes, given Linux's extremely widespread use, including at some of the biggest Internet sites in the world, Linux certainly has this advantage.
Faster time-to-market via powerful tools and an extensible framework.
Linux's Posix-based environment is proven, extensible, mature, and very widely used. Its Internet, services, management, and GUI frameworks are also highly extensible and industry leading. An additional time-to-market advantage is the immediate availability of updates and bug fixes throughout the community. This is in contrast with Microsoft's centralized development style, in which I am completely dependent on their efforts to deliver bug fixes.
Ease of deployment, interoperability, and manageability in a heterogeneous environment.
Indeed: score another one for Linux. Its POSIX foundations, widest support for network protocols and services, and multitude of options for management (including command line, GUI-based and network based), make it the clear winner.
Better business alignment with straightforward licensing and clarity of intellectual property ownership.
Yes, I very much prefer the straightforward licensing and clarity of the GPL over the muddy and complex legal agreements with a company like Microsoft. Furthermore, licensing costs for Linux are predictable in perpetuity. And, as an added bonus, I do not need to hire expensive lawyers to analyze the GPL--it is a known, standard, predictable agreement.
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
Perhaps he has realized, past his zealotry, that Windows is not the end-all, be-all of operating systems for every task, and that Microsoft's products are not better simply because they are Microsoft's.
Perhaps he has seen the light of human honesty and integrity in his soul finally overshadow the lingering "Must figure out a way to word this, regardless of accuracy, that makes us look good and them look bad." thoughts that seemto possess many executives these days.
Perhaps he has realized that he is nothing but a particularly rich slave to others, the shareholders, and that it is his human freedom and right to say something honest and with true integrity and ethical reasoning--granting him a euphoria of freedom and confidence in his humanity...
And then I woke up.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
So, according to some study on webservers (probably funded exclusively by M$), IIS 5 performs better than Zeus 3.3.2. Yes, Zeus. Seriously, who in their right mind would compare Zeus to IIS rather than Apache and IIS? And I love how they use different hardware for the comparisons... kinda trying to imply that Linux doesn't work on "normal" Dell hardware, but only "expensive" IBM hardware.
Here's the quote from M$:
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
So basically you are stating that if you steal the GPL code, and then someone catches you that you must spend time to write the code yourself. Wow. What a huge risk.
I wonder why they are worried about that type of risk....
Gandhi had nothing to do with India gaining its independence. The British left when they felt it wasn't worth it to colonize India anymore - which was about the same time they abandoned most of their other colonies - check your history references.
The British loved Gandhi because he preached non-violence and passiveness - exactly what the British wanted to see in their subjects. The British-controlled media therefore projected Gandhi to be the leader of the masses.
The Hindus and Muslims were sworn enemies before Gandhi - the British were a mere distraction in their fight against each other.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"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??
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.
This is true. Microsoft does tend to impose the One True Way (TM), which can simplify some things. However, other people regard the fact that you can choose the best technologies for your application as a positive.
Also often true, but: a) a lot of those capabilities are Windows tools that you probably wouldn't use in a Linux project unless you had to for compatibility reasons, b) a lot of them were open source packages that are usually packaged by the various distributions and are an apt-get away from installing, c) if they're open source, the extra licensing costs are zero anyway, and d) who says building everything into the OS is a good idea anyway?
And Windows is perfect?
It's good news that MS are changing their arguments to push their products over Linux-based solutions, because it tends to suggest that their customers (at least in this application domains) weren't listening to their old ones.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The best part from the comparison page is in the scaling/performance block:
This can tie the OEM to a particular, potentially financially unstable Linux vendor and its support programs...
Microsoft is worried that a particular software package may tie users to a particular vendor. Oh the irony...
BTW - anyone know what a karma value of 'Excellent' means? Does this mean I've reached the cap?
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
The Linux community is not TRYING to make an OS that is as EASY as windows..The community is making a fast, robust, secure IS that works......and w/ power comes a learning curve. How come every one and their mother took MCSE classes when they knew UNIX admins made double? Because, they KNEW it was difficult, and windows was easy...
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
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.
"Microsoft stock price is too high."
He said this a couple of years ago, when it was over $100. By golly, he was right.
Thats like saying that using a bank for your personal finances is dangerous because in the event that you rob the bank you may have to return the money you stole.
One of the many reasons why M$ has been so successful over the years is because they are paranoid. Any company that seems remotely threatening, M$ will either acquire, destroy, or spread FUD. I bet Linux was on their radar long before the ween memo.
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.
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.
Look at these quotes from the story:
Perhaps now that they can't prop up their financial statements, they are trying to spin it by saying "we were trying to compete on price with something our competition gives away for free." Where have I heard that before? Let me see, oh yes, during the anti-trust trial, I believe, from that other browser maker.The recent statements about it being Apple's fault they haven't sold half as many versions of Office v.X as they had projected could also play into this strategy. "We would have made our quarterly projections, if Apple would have just advertised OS X more!"
I wonder how much it would have cost them if they'd unwittingly used someone else's copyrighted code from a proprietary source. I don't see any difference here. GPL is a copyright just like any other.
GPL never says that it's free as in beer. You can't just use someone's hard work and expect not to pay for it somehow... GPL just says that your payment comes in the form of community service... ie: give back to the community that gave to you.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
As someone on the varbusiness site noted, Microsoft is *NEVER* friendly nor admits to FUD or mistakes *UNLESS* they are preparing some sort of new attack on their competition. I would watch that space for upcoming announcements with regard to new Microsoft licencing restrictions (Trying to make it illegal to use Win on the same computer as Linux??) or something else.
Assuming that MS doesn't turn out to be as insolvent as Worldcom or Enron, their current strategy seems to lead them out of software development and into providing services. With software no longer their primary money maker, it'll be pushed to the side probably much the same way that stability and security have been pushed asided for new features.
This may be one of a long chain of public announcements leading to MS support of OSS while they try to figure out how to lock in OSS users.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
or: "You're too good. Now get the hell off my dad's polo field!"
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
3rd option: Negotiate a special licence from copyright holder of GPLed work under which you can keep borrowed code in your software and still distribute it under other that GPL license.
hany
Give me a -1 if you will, but the parent deserves a better mention.
"i personly think if this new proccessor takes off ibm should get into the ocnsumer processer market."
They are in a limited fashion... Apple anyone? Now with new refreshing afertaste and a crisp crunch.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
It is simply a new face to the same story. Microsoft will not admit that it is absolutely incapable of using accepted standards without modifying it to make it incompatible with anything else and ONLY for that reason.
They will dig themselves a hole in the ground because their obsessive desire to control everything gets on everybodies nerves, including most of their "partners". And it is to these "partners" that this message is addressed. Microsoft is very worried that those companies have started using Linux in a big way and are very irritated with Microsoft's FUD because it goes against what they are experiencing in the practical day to day implementations, where Linux is stable, cheap, powerful and flexible.
However I still don't think that this will save MS' ass in the data center. The economy is bad and no one has extra money for MS games.
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
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
There will be. You don't really think that once Linux has "won" the zealots will settle down right? Then it will be Debian vs. RedHat vs. SuSe vs. etc. etc. People will always find an excuse to consider what they do superior to what somebody else does.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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.Win98SE is the best, up utnil about nine months ago. Win2k is the best now. XP is too flakey. I should know, I'm running it so I can get about 10% better performance in games.
WinME is the biggest piece of shit of the whole Win 9x / NT4 and beyond line. NOBODY in the history of history aside from you has pretended that ME is better than 98SE. Seriously, what is your deal?
Win2k is on SP2 now and you know what? it's stable. It does what I expect. (Though active directory is still freakin' weird.) For me it's like that comfortable pair of blue jeans, which is exactly what NT 4 has going for it.
XP is like some chick you just started dating but you haven't really committed to (read: installed a service pack) yet. I tried XP last November and I balied after I hit three showstoppers in one day. And why do I have to regedit to make the menus show up in less than 250 milliseconds? What kind of gayness is that? I get notified every five minutes if my HD has only 50MB free? What if that HD is supposed to be full of MP3.
But seriously, my home computer is essentially a internet/pr0n appliance and game console, and MP3 player and DVD player. The actual OS doesnt' really have too much to do with it when the day is done. I would install Linux if i could play cool games like GTA3.
So just what makes Microsoft fear Linux so much?
MS Rep: So, the deal is $20 per unit then.
Dell Rep: Actually, you know, we've really been seriously looking at this Linux thing. We've been considering offering it as an option on our desktop machines.
MS Rep:People aren't going to buy that. Can you just sign here please?
Dell Rep:We're not so sure. Many customers are really mad as MS at the moment. If we heavily promoted Linux on the desktop...
MS Rep:Ok, I hear what your saying. $15 a unit.
Dell Rep:$10.
MS Rep:You've got to be kidding!
Dell Rep:We actually have a few people working on our own Linux distribution at the moment. With StarOffice on top, well, it's real pretty. You want to see it?
MS RepOk, OK! $10 a unit it is.
One of the main reasons MS must fear Linux is because it gives OEMs a serious negociating position. MS aren't used to that.
Trying not to drop into an ad-hominem cheapshot
The last project that I know of which Gates authored was a ROM Basic. The Basic interpreters which followed for various early microcomputers were written by his assciates at MSFT. Of course whether or not Bill still writes code I have no actual knowlege, but nothing I've read from MSFT suggests that he acts in any capacity but architect / vision-leader.
I think this 'aura' of a brilliant coder plus his wealth is exactly the primary MSFT strategic advantage. I know dozens of lawyers, MBA's, executives who seem to beleive the following:
This guy (company) is fabuloulsy successful so their product must be just wonderful
and:
He's this really brilliant programmer / geek and that's the basis of it all
And because these folks haven't got a tech background they're basically taking it on faith. honestly it's insidious, I've seen an entire company (very big one) in a different business say 'wow that's great, lets emulate it ... ohh and yes lets also go with MS in the Data Center! [doh!]. (They fired an MIS director and then a CIO who couldn't make this fine strategy actually work in practice.)
Now what *is* true about Bill (IMO) is that he's really bright (and that his early commercial coding was largely in either assembler or on DEC PDP / Vaxen used for emulation of 8080/z90/x86 systems). Where to my knowlege he applies this is strategy and architecture, and if I don't like his choices, I'm the first to admit they've been effective (if underhanded and illegal) in the market.
Second, for 2 decades MSFT aggressively hired the very best and brightest CS grads. A freind who teaches in one of the better university CS departments observed this and on that basis only started investing in MSFT. That was a very good investment strategy for him :-).
Today I think even the financial types are beginning to realize that some of this is smoke & mirrors. I think the combination of unreasonable licensing changes and the slap on the wrist they just got from SEC are just the sort of thing that these people pay attention to.
Microsoft has always been brought more or less kicking and screaming into standard technologies. netbui vs tcp/ip; WINS vs DNS; NT Domains vs Kerberos|LDAP. Often they have implemented open technology (DCE) in the internals, just not making these the preferred API's.
Of course the whole time I and other opensource types have been looking on and saying *yikes* you want to put this cruft in an enterprise??! MSFT is highly feature driven and lusers love features. Nowhere near enough coders (or architects) work to the priciple that the least code that will do the job is usually the best solution.
Througout, Gates has pushed Basic as the language of choice [shrug]. Gates I don't really want to meet, his original partner Paul Allen, also a billionaire who has said "Blame me for having to type the backslash" ... he doesn't want to meet me in an alley :-)
I will say that I'm glad Gates is focussing on technology again. .NET has promise, and the mono initiative will make it open. His foundation is also giving big money in important areas of medical research and he cares about the right stuff, (e.g. HIV/AIDS).
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
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
M$ knows the government is watching them. They know that any one of these days they can REALLY be split up.
What would you do if your company were in such a situation?
I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd purposely let my competitors gain a bit of market share, but keep them in check at all times. I'd invest in Apple so they don't go kapoof. I'd play up Linux as a competitor just so "they" think M$ isn't really a monopoly any longer.
Don't fall for this people. Not saying that it's happening, but be on the lookout.
Now for my second point:
M$ has a concentrated effort to kill their competitors, but Linux doesn't. When's the last time Linux embraced and extended a protocol to mess with M$'s implementation? Like never. And when was the last time M$ changed a standard and broke Linux compatibility? **cough**Samba**cough**
Until there's a concentrated effor on behalf of the Linux community to mess with M$ in return, this competition isn't really anything they're afraid of.
Let's just say a day comes when Linux gains so much market share that M$ really starts feeling the heat? What can they do? They can make their own version of Linux and "extend" it till they kidnap it all to themselves. And this would only occur "IF" (and that's a big IF) Linux ever gains THAT much market share.
eTrade SUCKS
But it's worth pointing out 51 times.
It seems that many of the points made on the MS website have more to do with Linux not working with windows. For example:
No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwords-one for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX
So, if you only use Windows, you only need 1 password, but if you use Linux, you'll need one for us and one for them. So automatically they decide that EVERYONE must use windows, and you have an option to choose Linux for a couple of minor things. And this is MS first point in all of the comparison, thus you'd think it was one of their strongest/most important arguments.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
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).
5. NIS support. sure windows has it, but have you ever checked how well it performs. it sucks.
When did Windows get NIS support, it was part of the third party PCNFS package, but that was DOS based.
6. user friendlyness, have you ever tryed installing windows in a disk that was not the primary IDE without getting the boot records destroyed. Linux can be installed in any partition with easyness.
Installing any OS really should not be treated as a user task. Whilst this is a point in favour of Linux the term "user friendlyness" dosn't apply. You'd need something more like "not having a strange box called Domain: which needs to be set correctly in order to log in", "being able to copy and paste using only the mouse", etc.
It is a complete lie of course. The only thing that can happen is that the OEM loses the right to distribute the GPL software they've tried to include in a proprietary piece of intellectual property. Of course, that may make their own intellectual property worthless if it's dependent upon the GPL software.
Kindof like if they got hold of MS sourcecode and used that code in a program they made and got caught at it. I sortof doubt that MS gives them right to distribute Microsoft code just because their product depends on it...
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).
I'm just in shock! Microsoft lying to further their own product? Naw....I mean, they are only supposed to do what's in the public good, right?
:P
Oh wait.
on the other hand, the paragraph " For OEMs considering or planning to enter the server appliance market, the choice between Linux or Windows for a server appliance operating system involves critical trade-offs between platform functionality, incremental engineering and development effort, overall cost, and, most importantly, time-to-market. Ultimately, the OEM's goal is to select an operating system and tool set that enable them to get to market quickly, limit development cost, and differentiate their appliance, all on a reliable platform that delivers superior price-performance. In addition, OEMs want an operating system that delivers proven value from a reputable vendor who will support them for the long term." makes me wonder if they aren't secretly using linux on their servers.
It's been a long time.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
yeah I guess if I was MS I would've said exactly the same thing.
This happens every time a court gets close to announcing a verdict with respect to Microsoft's anti-trust actions. Look back when Jackson was getting ready to announce his verdict - the same thing happened: MS announces that "Linux is pretty good - not as good as Windows, but pretty good."
Now: cat MS_statements | subtext.filter
"See, we have competition, and it is doing pretty good. So we cannot be monopolists, and if you so rule, we will appeal and point to this as evidence of bias."
cat MS_statements | subtext.filter | ms2english
"Bias against Microsoft = disagreeing with anything that makes Microsoft money"
www.eFax.com are spammers
That's a pretty big assumption. Personally, I "upgraded" from a very stable 98lite install to Windows ME(unfortunately, NVidias TV-in driver hates 98, so barring a triple boot to RH7.3/98lite/ME, I'm stuck with it, unless I want to waste all that hardware), and in a bare install(right from scratch, since I deleted 98 before installing ME), things such as shutting down correctly would cause a lockup upon the next bootup. If Windows ME is allowed to have flaws like that, and it's users therefore "don't know how to make it work", then there is obviously a double standard concerning linux, considering the fact that I've *never* had to worry about X locking up over something as trivial as running "halt".
On the other hand, I've also had some problems in the past with Windows deciding to fubar a driver installation. given the choice between installing my rockwell winmodem under Windows or Linux, running a single RPM and being on the internet without another reboot is far preferable to MS plug and Play.
It's been a long time.
The gamepad is also better for anysort of vehicle game other then tanks. Space fighters, racing games, hover vehicle games, flight sims - they're all nicer once that god-aweful overcomplicated keyboard diagram has been thrown out the window and replaced with a nice friendly little gamepad.
Prettymuch the only thing the keyboard/mouse hybrid is better as is RTS, FPS, and Turn Based strategy... oh, and Maxis-style Sim games.
This is why the PC has no popular games outside of those genres. Even the car games like GTA have moved over more and more to the consoles.
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
Well, I guess Microsoft decided to give the Linux developers a checklist of things to implement or improve over the next few years in Linux. So, they can have a more "competitive edge" on MS.
:-)
Thank you Microsoft.
~ kjrose
I find that quite odd considering that it takes about 1/4 of the price of a console to get a really high-end gamepad, the likes of which won't be seen on a console any time soon.
The fact that the extensibility of the PC is so often ignored irritates me to some degree. Plugging a quality gamepad is not hard, and in some cases with USB pads, you don't even need to set anything up(except for calibrating). Personally, I'd much rather spend the 50 bucks for a quality gamepad, and hook my PC up to my TV, than spend 500 dollars for a console(plus several hundred dollars to replace the games I already own).
It's been a long time.
That will piss off the majority, who isn't mad at us, and almost nobody will buy your computers anymore.
This is precisely why Wal-Mart can get away with selling computers with Linux on them. Microsoft needs Wal-Mart a lot more than Wal-Mart needs Microsoft. I.e., Wal-Mart isn't going to go out of business if Microsoft disallows them from selling computers, but Microsoft will lose a major distribution outlet if they pissed off Wal-Mart. As a result, Wal-Mart is easily able to do things that other Microsoft OEMS could never dream of getting away with. Also, I think Walmart could easily tell Microsoft how much it is willing to pay for licenses because of this very fact.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
MS Rep: No, $15. If you don't comply we won't let you sell computers with Windows. That will piss off the majority, who isn't mad at us, and almost nobody will buy your computers anymore.
All lawyers: [Sharp intake of breath]
Dell lawyer: Erm. So you're saying if Dell sell Linux on desktop machines you'll withdraw their Windows licence? Let me just make a note of that...
MS lawyer No, no, sorry, my client drank too much sangria at lunchtime. He didn't mean to say that. Please ignore it.
MS Rep But!
MS lawyer [Jabs MS Rep with elbow, whispers] I've told you, you can't say that stuff anymore. You're a convicted monopolist, remember?
Dell Rep [smiling smugly]: So we're agreed. $10 a unit...
Prior to this the Muslims always tried to invade India from the North-West and were often (but not always) repelled. Passive Hindu mainland India has never attempted to invade foreign lands in its entire history. I have never seen "The Hindus invaded another sovereign nation....." in any history books.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
My Windows 98 FE with IE4 *SP2* hasn't crashed in **TCP timeout, submitting unsaved post**
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Apparently the only way to compete against MS is to not be a company
that generates income enough to compete on the same level of developemnt
as MS. To be a company means to be attacked by MS with their
anti-competitive practices.
So a bunch a independant freesoftware developers who represent "freedom"
is the only force to counter the ongoing "constraints" of MS.
It the same group of freesoftware developers that are responsible for
getting MS to at leat claim they are going to start producing quality
software?
Microsoft is a criminal, proven in court, and now they are using the money
they got while being criminals, to do what?
What better way to defeat freedom, creativity and innovation than to put
constraints on it.
So MS thinks constraining others is better than the freefom of others....
GPL: "Your software is our software
Bullshit. First of all, the GPL (in this case) covers development using someone else's source code. You want to compare this to MS, show me MS's version of the license... I'm sure that it's WAY more complex than the GPL.
Please, don't spread anit-MS FUD.
Please, don't spread anti-Linux FUD.
It *doesn't* beat MS on ease-of-end-userness ease-of-making-money-with.
How, exactly, is this relevant to your point? Are you claiming that the GPL impacts ease of use, or ease of development? It does neither of these things; it simply spells out the conditions you must abide by if you want to distribute software based on someone else's (GPL'ed) code.
Its funny, in almost every every comparison on M-Softs list, it read to me like "Linux has this, but ". With the exception of ASP support, almost all of the features that are supported on Windows are also supported in Linux, as --->FREE--- (this word was omited from just about everything in the Linux column) add-ons mind you. And the funny thing is, it seemed to me that the whole comparison was done based on a Windows network (ie. Linux supports SMB via Samba...), which most of these features wouldnt be necessary if there wasnt a need for Windows connectivity on the network... Basically what I got from the page was if I want to set up a Windows based network with Active Directory running IIS for ASP support, I should probally run Windows, if I have a Windows server, Linux can act as a client with a bunch of add-ons, but if I wanted a less expensive network with little to no tech support that I wouldnt use anyway (after all, checking the various FAQs and LUG's on the web prove to be more helpful than some pimply faced intern whos reading from a script on screen anyhow) I can run Linux, which has the capability to be backwards compatible via add-ons with the Windows network that Im throwing out... Thanks M-Soft, thats all the reassurance I need...
Oh... and by the way... M-Soft, with all the great features of Windows, forgot to mention that when you go with Windows as your higher priced native alternative to the less compatible with Windows networks Linux, your also getting your enterprise locked into M-Softs licensing scam... after all Mr Balmer, who Im sure is missing lots of sleep over this issue, if your execs cant figure out a way to make Windows cost less than the competitors free OSS alternative, just lock your customers into slavery with legal trickery and evil EULA's....
As I almost did while I was laughing really hard at this statement:
"Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports load balancing clusters of up to 32."
As opposed to the load balancing cluster of 10,000 (yes, ten thousand) Linux machines that Google uses.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Ballmer, speaking Monday at Microsoft's Fusion 2002 partner conference in Los Angeles, said in this new competitive landscape, the software giant relies even more heavily on the expertise, contacts and value-added-services of its business partners to compete effectively against the Linux threat.
Translation: They know more people, have more customers, and throw more money at their sales force.
Not a great long-term strategy, if you ask me -- relying on your existing bulk to carry you through. Many companies have been shot out of the water because they thought they had more momentum than they did.
Say what you like about M$, but WinXP is a damn sight more stable than KDE!
Nah, it's just your Mandrake install.
I've been running KDE (2.x to 3.0 to now 3.1 CVS) on a Slack8-based system for just under a year now and have not crashed anything unless I was really trying to screw with it. CVS sometimes breaks things but I've never had anything in a true release crash or spontaneously give up on me. I cannot say the same for Win2k.
Sure sometimes an application will crash (OpenOffice mostly, but sometimes KMail if I'm screwing around with GPG options) but it's never taken down the system. Win2k is the exact same in this regard.
Damn sight more stable my ass...
I don't have any idea how well Windows does SMP (the only report I've gotten firsthand from a friend was with NT 4.0 SP5 vs. Redhat 5.2 with a custom-built kernel on a dual-Celeron box, but Redhat creamed NT back then... don't know if the story's changed).
The threading implementation bit, however, I can say is complete FUD. At the moment the threading implementation is slightly less than *twice* as good as WinXP's implementation, which was an improvement over Win2K's.r y/l-rt7/.
Here's a good article (good series of articles, in fact, comparing many low-level features of Windows and Linux) http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libra
AFAIK, the "thread implementation" FUD got started from an article that stated that at the kernel level Linux managed threads the same as lightweight processes... the part the FUD-mongers *don't* tell you is that the article went on to say that the deal was not that threads were slowed down to the point of LWPs, but that LWPs on Linux executed much faster than threads on either Solaris or Windows.
Hope this has done a good job disabusing you ;)
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/sak/eval uation/compare/advantage.asp
straightforward licensing...
Industry-leading scalability and performance...
Proven reliability...
a more secure environment...
an array of licensing complexities around the General Public License...
Does microsoft get karma for being funny?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Intellectual property is not stealing.
No, but stealing IS stealing. (Although the term used is incorrect, if you use someone's IP, you have to abide by their terms.)
His point is that if you incorporate GPL'd code with your own code that emcompasses your IP, you'll lose your IP.
And he's wrong.
If you GPL your source code, you do _NOT_, under _ANY_ circumstances, lose your rights to the code.
You are perfectly free to license it under other terms, or to make changes to it (without releasing them), or anything else you want to do.
And also that they have a settlement with the SEC [sec.gov] in which they have been ordered to cease and desist "cookie jar" accounting practices?
Exactly how many times is the government going to order Microsoft to obey the law before pressing the big red button labelled "Nuke"?
I never said linux was any better. Log in as root and do a bit of rm -r /bin/* and see what happens (it won't be pretty). I'm saying that if Microsoft says Windows XP is indestructible because System recovery can recover anything, then they're wrong. Same as those industralists that came on CNN 3 years ago and said, "Corporate governance is so established, in the future the Federal government won't exist, everything will be run by the corporations". Yeah right.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
/templates/GlobalItems/HomePageFunctions.asp, line 3
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed. The maximum simultaneous user count of 150 licenses for this 'Standard Edition' server has been exceeded. Additional licenses should be obtained and installed or you should upgrade to a full version.
thelocust[dot]org
http://www.monolith-design.net/images/charming.png
Follow me
I read through that nice new comparison page. I laughed most of the way through because of Microsofts claims of increased time and cost for developing the integration of almost everything they comared. I find that most hilarious since when I install most Distributions right now, they come with most if not all of those features already enabled and integrated. Now I don't know how Microsoft came up with these claims of increased costs, my guess is they took someone at Microsoft that has never heard of or even tried Linux and said make a server that compares to our Windows 2000 Server offerings and write us a report on it.
If I was an OEM/System Integrator, once I have setup a working server for one customer, with the features MS Compares against Linux, I would be able to configure further servers for other clients with a lot less time involed. Microsoft makes it sound like with Linux you have to learn how to integrate software over every time you install a system.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
Microsoft just raised the price of their software.
And with their new licensing plan, you have to pay for it again, and again, and again. Every year. You don't know what the price will be next year. Microsoft might raise their prices next year. They might raise their prices again, and again, and again. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Shouldn't you be using Linux?
That's what I get when I try to read the story. Only MS IIS gives that message, apache doesn't have that message.
Hehe, that gives a great punch to the story on theregister 'it costs more because its worth more'. Yeah, right, server too busy, it can't even handle a little bit of web load.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
"However, these add-on clustering solutions come from various sources, do not conform to any set standards, and are often implemented on a particular Linux distribution."
What are they talking about?
Hmm, MPI and PVM are standards, more so they are _the_ standards, and are supported in Linux beowulf clusters.
Even if it were true, with Linux clusters in the top50 (not a typo) of supercomputers, whatever they use for clustering is a standard on its own. Beowulf so widely used that it is a de facto standard too.
The MS stuff is not a standard and only implemented on a particular MS distribution...
Actually, LSF runs on RedHat, Suse, OpenLinux, TurboLinux (LSF v4.1), Debian, and Suse. It even says 'tested with', so it doesn't even force you to use one of those. So which particular Linux distribution did they miss (ok, mandrake and gentoo)? And which "potentially financially unstable Linux vendor" does that bind you to if it'd very well possible to run it on the other distributions, just not tested by the supplier?
Maybe MS thinks clustering is mainly failover, but that's much less valid for stable operating systems.
This new page will not survive long either.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
IBM broke the law, got called on it, agreed to behave better and got killed for a few years by the market which they could no longer control with an iron fist (without breaking their agreement).
Microsoft broke the law, got called on it, agreed to behave better and then didn't.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The drivers are and have always been plentiful. But not always very reliable. In fact, that used to be MSFT's own defense for the Blue Screen of Death: third party drivers crapping out windows. So their solution? The whole MSFT certified drivers program, which is fine, but if I had to rely only on MSFT certified drivers I wouldn't be able to use my current video card, printer and network card (all from well known manufacturers). So, the moral of the story: MSFT can claim to have wider support for consummer hardware (not that it matters that much in the server market) but "reliability" that's another story all together...
Oh, I agree - I set up gamepads on my machine all the time. Except there are a few problems.
First, quality per dollar in gamepads on the PC is terrible compared to consoles. I can get an indestructible and robust GameCube gamepad for 25CAN while I can get a Gravis with less buttons, less axes, and will break in a year for 30CAN.
Second, gamepads reflect the difference between console and PC games. PC games are, in many cases, designed like PC applications except with artificial environments. Civ is a Nation Management Software hooked up to simulated world. That sort of thing must be done with mouse and keyboard. The inverse exists on console games - Twisted Metal Black is designed for 4 players to clobber each other on a game pad with an analog stick, 4 shoulder buttons and 4 right-thumb buttons. Twisted Metal 2 on PC had no splitscreen and overcomplicated keyboard controls.
I have yet to see anyone other then a handful of indies make PC games that are designed for mulitple players using multiple gamepads on 1 machine like a console is. Some have splitscreen, but those are often FPS games that suck outside of their standard control system (keyboard/mouse).
The fact is that people tend to design for the system's starting hardware. There are few 4-player PS2 games. There are few PS1 games that support an Analogue stick. Most PC games are designed around a keyboard/mouse. Damn few PC games are meant to have more then one user on the same machine - because almost nobody has the hardware to do that (I do - Atomic Bomberman is why).
Besides, most of the good reasons to own a console are not ported to PC.
Last I checked, ALSA had a driver for some of MOTU's MIDI timepieces.
I believe there's some support for high-end audio cards such as those from (Hammerfall???) too.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"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."
Yes, It makes it much simpler for Microsoft to take a larger portion of our money!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
That's because Linux is the bare *kernel only*, not the distro of applications that run on top of the kernel.
I'd say 50% or more of the things MS says are not "integrated" are default installs on most distributions. Almost all of the rest are easy. I'd call that integrated... Samba, for example, if not default, is an option that can be installed with a single "click" in the installer. Same with Apache. Same with Sendmail.
Want a mail server solution under Windows? oops, gotta buy Exchange. Doesn't seem that integrated to me there... A fully functional MTA (usually sendmail, sometimes qmail or another mail daemon in security-conscious distros) is in nearly every single distribution as a default install.
No single logon??? Hmm... pam_smb? Or going the other way, SAMBA as the domain controller.
Better? Yes. Still full of FUD and twisting of the truth? Come on, it's Microsoft.
Now, of course, when making the distinction between kernel and distribution, the line IS blurry for MS - SMB and IIS ARE heavily integrated into the Windows kernel. But is that necessarily a good thing? Many who care about security and stability don't consider it to be so.
All someone has to do is set up a distro the right way (Not necessarily the end user - A distro creator could do this) that addresses nearly every single one of MS's points.
Oh, ASP not native? Maybe because there's a better solution? PHP, mod_perl, how many other options that blow away ASP? (Maybe not ASP.NET from what I've heard...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
doh. i smell a troll 'round here.
do you have any benchmarks for kde's less responsiveness than W2k/XP? my guess is that they're about the same on exact same hardware (they both need decent harware to execute comfortablally). sure there's somethings that w2k can do quicker, and some tasks that kde will handle quicker. all in all they're about the same.
to you're other nonsubstanciated commment, yes, lightweight wm's can be good. especially when you're not after a complete desktop environment. a kiosk needs some sort of a wm, but needs only one window w/ limited functionality. network access also needs lightweight access (vnc, term serve, remote X display, etc). unfortunately, with win, lightweight on the desktop isn't easily available. you don't have much of a choice.
telling the OS to erase the filesystem is a little different from locking it up with a legitimate command which malfunctions.
It's been a long time.
Can't argue with that, I only rarely find a game which works well with my gamepad -- except for emulators, which probably don't count(but playing all my PSX games at 1600x1200 with 4Xs AA is just nice. :) )
It's been a long time.
Maybe it's your hardware. I have everything accellerated on my KDE3 box and it all runs fast. In Windows, I had everything running off of a striped IDE RAID-0 array, and it was fast. Under KDE, it is running off of non-striped drives, but uses different partitions for different things. I am not noticing any difference in speed of apps, really. OpenOffice is pretty slow at loading, no matter what. On Linux, it seems to be faster than my Windows machine at work, but that is because I have a faster CPU and 7200 RPM drives at home. OpenGL games on my Linux box seem faster than in Windows.
It would be best for you to compare Windows XP with KDE. Windows 2000 was much more optimized for older hardware. 128 MB of RAM will run KDE just fine, but you should probably have 256 MB instead. It is the same for Windows XP. Otherwise, you are going to be accessing the swap file all the time, and it is time consuming. My machine has 1024 MB of RAM and it never touches the swapfile on my Linux box. So everything loads nearly instantaneously.
It all depends on a lot of variables. Hardware and drivers is the biggest issue. Often, in Linux you will also find all sorts of server daemons running that you don't need. It is very important to shut those off if you are going to use it as a desktop OS. Overall, my performance and stability is perfect. I have no complaints. Windows 2000 was a good OS, but I have decided not to use it any more, purely for the political reasons.
I find that quite odd considering that it takes about 1/4 of the price of a console to get a really high-end gamepad, the likes of which won't be seen on a console any time soon.
The fact that the extensibility of the PC is so often ignored irritates me to some degree. Plugging a quality gamepad is not hard, and in some cases with USB pads, you don't even need to set anything up(except for calibrating). Personally, I'd much rather spend the 50 bucks for a quality gamepad, and hook my PC up to my TV, than spend 500 dollars for a console(plus several hundred dollars to replace the games I already own).
Ah, but there is the problem of WINDOWS itself hampering gamepad use for decades. I bought a cheap analog joystick to play games with and at rest point it jittered the screen when left untouched. The reason is simple, if there is a leaky potentiometer the signal isn't zero, but a string of numbers bouncing in all directions. WINDOWS does not have a single method to define DEAD ZONES to ignore zero-point signal quivers. Most consoles have the compensation of the leaky zero-point joystick signal on the controller written into their development software so they do not have this issue except on the cheaper controllers.
I could get by with a cheap multi-button analog joystick for most games if only WINDOWS had created a DEAD ZONE option in their crappy joystick interface crapware. That is one of the main reasons people by default use the keypad on PC games and has ALWAYS been the reason (though the pricer joysticks have software corrections for any ZERO-POINT / Joystick at rest jitters so the gamer need not endure the WINDOWS crapware joystick interface.
Yeah, analog joysticks are cheap, but getting over WINDOWS & MICROSOFT-CRAPWARE is the bother for everyone.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
When Microsoft first started giving IE away for free, I suspect that this was what they were planning: as soon as Netscape was gone, they could start charging for it. Then some marketing genius came up with the idea of enmeshing it, and the rest is well-known.