Slashdot Mirror


Halloween VII

mjh writes "ESR has reviewed the latest Microsoft leaked Linux strategy document. A very interesting read. Summary: OSS is winning some battles, but Microsoft is poised to bring out bigger and nastier guns." To the extent that people read it and gain some insight into what Microsoft is actually thinking about Linux and Open Source Software, it's useful. To the extent that anyone draws a conclusion from this document like "we've got Microsoft on the run", that's just idiotic.

14 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. Looking for proof. by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although this seems legit at-a-glance, I can't find any proof that this is truely an internal MS document. Time for me to start querying the insiders :-).

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  2. Yeah, MS is thinking about OS... by MagicFab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but mostly incorporating ideas and concepts into their OS. Maybe sometimes OS projects should also pay attention to succesful companies (from marketing, not technical point of view).

    Remember a lie repeated 1000 times can become truth ;)

    --
    Notepad specialist & FAT administrator, group training available
  3. Anyone think this may not be a "Leak" by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whats the chances of this "Leak" being intentional? M$ isn't to be underestimated, especially not with pockets as deep as theirs.

  4. Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft by deanc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The essence of the document was that MS's attacks on the viral nature of the GPL weren't working and that they'd do better to extol the virtues of their own product.

    Notice that, for the most part, the exact opposite strategy works for Linux advocates.

    This is because Microsoft, as the dominant player, has to justify it's own existence again and again, whereas Linux as the (initial) underdg, had nothing to lose by tearing down its rival. After all, as a multi-billion $$$ company, everyone knows that Microsoft can financially dominate the PR world to badmouth its competitors.

    Does this spell the end of "Linux is Bad/The GPL is unAmerican" propaganda from Microsoft? That coul dbe a disaster, because then we wouldn't have anything to flame about on slashdot anymore! :)

    1. Re:Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dissagree. I think negative attacks don't work well on either side, and that each competitor needs to focus on making their products the best, instead of cutting the other product down.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  5. Are you kidding? by selectspec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this might be a document produced by one of the thousands of MS minions, by no means is this the MS linux strategy document. Anyone who thinks so is incredible foolish.

    The MS linux strategy document is probably 1000 pages and is divided into three huge camps:

    1. enterprize server market (.net)
    2. deparment server market (win2k server)
    3. desktop OS

    They are probably closlely looking into the latest desktop linux distros from red hat and ximian and shitting their pants.

    They are still trying to figure out how to roll out .net.

    They are maintaining share in the department server market, but are aware that the eventual TOC issue is going to hand them their lunch soon.

    A company with 40 billion in cash and a 20 billion/year business doesn't write 2 page strategy documents.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  6. Linux needs a more professional evangelist by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it was all pretty sane up to that point; it's nice to know our opponents are still smoking crack -ESR

    I'm sorry, but if I was an IT manager of a corporation and if I was reading this commentary I would assume no credibility to ESR after this comment. Grow Up.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  7. FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too! by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the memo:

    Messages that criticize OSS, Linux, & the GPL are NOT effective. Messaging that discusses possible Linux patent violations, pings the OSS development process for lacking accountability, attempts to call out the 'viral' aspect of the GPL, and the like are only marginally effective in driving unfavorable opinions around OSS, Linux, and the GPL, and in some cases backfire. On the other hand 'positive' OSS, Linux, and GPL messages are very effective - both across geographies and audiences.

    (reviewer's comment):
    {I've suspected for a while that the anti-Linux, anti-GPL FUD campaign was actually rebounding on Microsoft. This seems to confirm it.}

    I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS. Being positive does a lot more than being negative. I find that this is a challenge for me personally, but I am working on it.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  8. Definition of Developer by warmcat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ESR says in his preface:

    Developer: A non-manager. In this survey, a disjoint category from "IT Pro'. Therefore, it probably means anybody with a technical clue.

    In fact by 'Developer' Microsoft means: 'person who writes software'. Its really interesting (in a good way) that ESR makes no mental distinction between a user and someone who can contribute, whereas for MS they are totally different categories.

  9. Aren't APPS the real issue? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watch any documentary about the infancy of the computer world and you'll hear the phrase "killer app" about a billion times. The real goal should be to get to the point where the line between it and Windows is transparent. The fact that Linux is free and more stable obviously isn't a selling point for most computer users, but get to the point where the desktops are just as intuitive, where all the apps people want to use are available in their Linux form and can interact with Windows apps: the basics: Office, AIM, Solitare :), and more importantly the more advanced stuff like Adobe's software, Macromedia, High end audio and sequencing software like eMagic Logic, and Cycling 74's Max/MSP...

    Most people that buy a Windows computer with Windows preinstalled aren't going to switch, or at least most will be absolutely intimidated by the idea, so you have to get them when they purchase the computer. Get Linux boxes into stores and available through the channels people buy through online, if somebody is looking at two identical computers that have the same stats, can run the "same" programs, and one of them costs $300 less because it doesn't have to bother with MS, then you have a winner.

    The real issue isn't what MS does to combat open source, the only people who understand the arguments about OSS are people already involved. The average computer user just wants something to run Office and get on the web...

    --
    sig.
    1. Re:Aren't APPS the real issue? by schlach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real goal should be to get to the point where the line between it and Windows is transparent.

      You know, I can't figure this out at all. Here we have the Linux community who, in large part, is not being compensated for their contributions. Therefore they are free to make whatever sort of contribution they want. And you know what sort of alternative to Microsoft platform they come up with? Something that attempts to look and feel identical to its Microsoft counterpart!

      Why? Why, why, why? We have the freedom to explore completely different paradigms in computing and user-interaction, and we insist on just writing open-source applications that clone their MS-equivalents. So the best that anyone can do, on any platform of their choice, is the Microsoft vision.

      "But we have to clone MS so that we can get Mom and Dad, and Pointy-Haired Boss, to switch to Linux!"

      -- Why?

      "Well, duh, so that we can kill Microsoft!"

      -- Why?

      "Because Microsoft is Evil, like the Nazis!"

      -- You lose.

      Why are we competing with MS on MS's own ground? When did Linux shift from being an alternative to being a clone? When did we stop being a bunch of people that wanted an OS that did what we wanted it to, and start being a bunch of people whose only driving goal is to kick MS off the desktop? What do we have to gain from that? I understand that RedHat has a financial interest in making software that looks and feels like Redmond's - they want enterprises to switch, so that they can sell systems, and enterprises will switch if it's not hard. Simple. But why does everyone else, that doesn't have a financial incentive, jump on that wagon? Why do people invest their limited time and energy, not to writing better software, but writing same software? Why do people in the Slashdot community constantly talk about how much better the world will be when there's no difference between Linux and Windows?

      The best software on *nix does it differently. Look at Apache. Anyone who wants it can figure out how to edit an httpd.conf file. It's not terribly hard. Why would anyone want to give it an IIS-like interface?

      I like linux because all the security tools are written for it, they're free, and I have the source to them. It's a hacker's playground. These tools don't have GUIs, let alone ones that look like they came from MS. Doesn't bother me. I'm going to use Linux so that I can use these tools, and when I write tools, I'm going to build them from the ones that are already successful at what they do.

      As an aside, anyone notice how much better the command-line paradigm deals with chaining/piping programs together? When something terminates at the GUI, it's really hard to make use of it without rewriting it. Maybe if everyone on Windows started using COM and .NET whenever they wrote anything, it wouldn't be as difficult to make a program collaborate. But a lot of people don't bother, often because it doesn't occur to them that someone would want to chain their program together; or because they don't want other people using their program in a non-approved way. Do we want to clone that paradigm? That apps should be feature-laden, bloated, and only useful in one specific way? As opposed to the typical Unix "do one thing really well (and make it a link in a chain)" paradigm? I dunno...

      Those are my questions. If you have answers, I'm all ears.

  10. Re:cost by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When you shell out $100 for a distro, you're getting 3 to 4 gigs of applications., as well as upgrades for the OS.

    Try that with Micro$hit, where, after upgrading the OS, you have to shell out $$$$ for software upgrades 'cause your current apps break

  11. Re:Unlikely! by ShavenYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you even try to upgrade Mandrake 8.2 to 9 without loosing all users configuration. Or Upgrade any other distribution to the same, but more recent, distribution whom was updated every four to six mouth ? no ! I try more than one. And every time, I have to reconfigure all the user preference.

    That's funny, I upgraded from Mandrake 8.2 to 9.0 (for free, I might add; I typically buy boxed sets at every other release, which is obviously not a legal option with Windows). I didn't loose (let go of, release) any configuration, nor did I lose (fail to keep possession of) any configuration.

    Also I should point out that if you update every "four to six mouth", you might have problems keeping track of time. The rest of us count months, not mouths. Or is it just that your N key is umop apisdn?

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  12. Re:biz dev definition by BeeShoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be serious. Biz dev and sales are only different to people who work in biz dev and sales.