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.

Comments

I hope Judge Kollar-Kotelly reads it!

[terraformer]

Maybe she will understand how badly she screwed up!

Re:I hope Judge Kollar-Kotelly reads it!

[neverkevin]

she didn't screw up, she knew exactly what she was doing.

Looking for proof.

[tshak]

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 :-).

Re:Looking for proof.

[RobertB-DC]

Speaking from a completely outside-the-loop observer, I'd conclude that it looks legit... if only because it is *so* dense with M$-speak. If it's a fake, it's an elaborately constructed fake... but then, it wouldn't be on /. if it weren't. Catch-22.

What I found interesting was near the bottom:

Copyright 2002 by the Open Source Initiative

Wouldn't this technically be a derivative work, based on a prior Microsoft work? I know I could copyright a work derived from a public domain work (like an annotated version of "O Danny Boy"), but does the M$ doc count as a public domain work?

I'm sure there's something in the EULA against that...

Re:Looking for proof.

[br0ck]

Perhaps it's only marginally a derivative work since he's attempting to use the copyright statement to show that the work is his own as commentary and satire. From the FAQ:

Would you please make un-annotated versions available?

No. As it is, my defense against a copyright-violation suit by Microsoft would have to make rather creative use of the exemptions in copyright case law relating to journalism, satire and commentary. I fear that making un-annotated copies available would place me at significant legal risk.

Re:Looking for proof.

[stefanlasiewski]

There's really no proof that the first set of Halloween Documents were truely an internal MS document either.

It's unlikely that we will ever see proof. The documents always come from 'a confidential source'.

If the confidential source is exposed, some poor MS employees will be fired, sued, and probably dumped into Puget Sound with a lead weight around their ankles.

Re:Looking for proof.

[KoolDude]

Here is a Web Archive link to the MS document that *somewhat* validates the first set of Halloween documents, obtained from the Haloween FAQ.

Re:Looking for proof.

[Gaijin42]

Hrm, I think his defense on satire and commentary or non existant. Could I go to a movie, record the whole thing on my camcorder, and talk through it, saying what I thought, and then distribute the end product? Nope.

This also isnt satire, as he is making legitimate comments, not making jokes.

Now, if he re-wrote the document, but made everyhitng outrageous, that could be satire, but not the way it is now.

He is of course perfectly within his righs to publish commentary, but publishing the full text of the commented document I think is out of bounds (from a legal perspective)

Re:Looking for proof.

[tomhudson]

editorial commentary allows for quoting the original article, even when the original is copyrighted material.

Mind you, I like the conclusions, including the one that the more technically clued-in you are, the less likely you are to favor Micro$oft products

Seems like a legit article to me, but I'm biased.

Re:Looking for proof.

[gasrios]

Try

http://opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php

specially the part that reads

"Microsoft HQ conceded that much [authorship of the document] to Wired, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times three days ago".

Lost somewhere in the middle.

Re:Looking for proof.

[Gaijin42]

commentary certainly allows quoting of the original. Just like a movie reviewer might show a still, or part of a scene.

But its not "quoting" if you put the whole thing. Can I quote your new book, in its entirety, and just add a few footnotes? Can I sell the result? Nope.

Note, I'm not saying this information shouldn't be out there. I'm just saying that a commentary or satire defense would quickly get squashed.

If he actually just quoted the document, or talked about it but didn't quote, then he would be much more in the clear.

Re:Looking for proof.

[tomhudson]

The funny thing is, if Microsoft were to go after him for copyright infringement, that would be all the proof that the whole thing WAS real.

They're in a can't-win situation. Don't sue, and people can keep leaking the docs, sue, and people KNOW the docs are legit, and that M$ is running scared.

Re:Looking for proof.

[wilhelm9]

I would say the opposite. Microsoft has from the start aimed at recruiting people "with clues". Personally, I haven't had an offer yet :-) but I know two guys who went on the PhD (most PhD:s have at least one clue) path and in the end ended up at Microsoft. It is funny that one of these guys were VERY anti-Microsoft back when we took classes together...

Re:Looking for proof.

[DunbarTheInept]

The phrase he used was "case law regarding journalism, satire, and commentary", not "case law regarding satire alone".

Re:Looking for proof.

[DunbarTheInept]

Not only that, but it would create the (probably true) image in the public eye that MS is embarassed to have the public find out how it conducts business and that's why it's making such a big deal over it. That's not the image they would want to put forth. I think this concern for image is the biggest thing that would hold them back from suing over it. Secondly there's the fact that a suit would make even more people hear about the document.

Re:Looking for proof.

[DunbarTheInept]

The guy who wrote them was an indian (asian, not native american) by the name of "Vinod" somethingorother. I cannot remember the full name, but at the time of the documents' release it was known, I believe.

Re:Looking for proof.

[nurightshu]

Could I go to a movie, record the whole thing on my camcorder, and talk through it, saying what I thought, and then distribute the end product?

I think you just described the business plan for Mystery Science Theater 3000 .

Re:Looking for proof.

[Gaijin42]

Very true, but I really bet they bought the rights, or at least obtained them.

Also, those are pretty old movies, many may have fallen out of copyright already

Would that be Michael Meyers?

[aiken_d]

Halloween VII, posted by Michael, eh? Where's the theme music?

Cheers
-b

Re:Would that be Michael Meyers?

[gaudior]

Even more important question: Where is Jamie Lee Curtis, and her breasts?

Re:Would that be Michael Meyers?

[cscx]

Seeing as how he killed the Censorware project, I see how you can easily get the two confused.

Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[levik]

I really think this is what MS staffers do for fun at the Halloween party! They probably draw straws, and the one to draw the shortest one has to write up the "leaked strategy memo on Linux" for the year!

Has there really been 7 of these things already?

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, MS admitted that one was real, but I agree that this may simply be something they do to pull the wool over Eric & Company. Strategy documents at HP were appreciably longer than two pages. Also, I got to see some MS strategy (under NDA to HP so you won't hear about it as much as I'd like to tell) and it didn't look like this.

Bruce

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Bruce Perens]

To clarify: MS admitted that one of the memos was real, long ago. They haven't said anything about this one.

Bruce

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strategy documents at HP were appreciably longer than two pages.

Really? That's amazing considering that HP seems to have no strategy whatsoever.

Well, other than buying another company besides themselves whose computers are only 1/2 step above what Packard Bell manufactured, that is.

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[gol64738]

i don't know about that, Bruce. i follow MS PR closely, and this document seems to fall exactly in the right place.
except for the twisted logic, everything in the document appears true (what marketing tactics fail, etc).

winning the TCO argument is not just something mentioned in this document, it's what MS is really trying to do right now.
the TCO argument is a win/win for MS if they can pull it off.

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Etyenne]

So, if I understand correctly M. Perens, you tied your hand signing an NDA ? I believe it's a big mistake. Maybe you did not really have a choice but I would personnally have forfeited looking at said document instead of legally forcing myself to silence.

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[kaisyain]

The PR department doesn't write strategy documents. So what you're saying is that this document could have easily been forged by anyone who, like you, "closely follows MS PR" (i.e. reads the news).

Strategy documents are not press releases. Press releases are not strategy documents.

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Bruce Perens]

Just about every engineering job comes with an NDA. The one I had at HP was standard for all employees.

Today I offer a consulting service to companies that want to use or produce Free Software. In order to do this, I enter into non-disclosure agreements with the companies, so that they can discuss possibilities with me without them ending up on Slashdot. Often I ask for the right to talk about things after they are released, if they are released, and sometimes I get it. The companies simply will not talk to me otherwise. So, I had to balance the cost of having information that I could not divulge against the benefit of being able to get some additional companies to participate in Free Software. Guess which one won?

And yes, some stuff I do simply ask them not to show me, and there are some people in the world with whom I would not enter into an NDA.

They can't pay me to change my mind or to shut up. They can pay me to honor their secrets, and once I take that payment, I'm honor-bound much as it might irk me. The point is not to take it from someone who would be hostile to us.

Bruce

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, CNET called me to check it out and I was noncommittal. They took the best quote they could out of what I said, check out news.com . But they say that they have an unnamed source who confirms it's real.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Bruce

Yeah, MS is thinking about OS...

[MagicFab]

... 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 ;)

Reportedly

[CySurflex]

Reportedly The Leaked Stragey Document only runs on an ATI RADEON 9700, and is pretty slugish even on the most high-end 3Mhz PC's. Oh wait - that's the leaked Doom 3 Alpha, never mind.

Re:Reportedly

[Anonymous Coward]

You should've left the last sentence off("Oh wait..."). We all know what you're talking about, and with that little bit of ambiguity, it would've been a lot more funny.

Re:Reportedly

[unicron]

Intel releases a hyperthreading 3.06GHZ mid-November. Granted, 3.06 isn't "high-end 3GHZ" but they are out.

Re:Reportedly

[Sj0]

...And Doom 1 won't run on my 286!!!

Re:Reportedly

[rppp01]

Damn it....3mhz?? well, here's hoping I can run it on my 1.2GHZ box.

whew. That was close. Now where did I put that 386sx33 at any ways....

Re:Reportedly

[raduga]

...And Doom 1 won't run on my 286!!!

Nope. This was a conscious design choice, midway through development, but early Betas of the Doom engine ran just fine on a 286 (with enough ram). You can argue all you like about the excellency of protected mode operations, but John Carmack is a bloody speed freak!

Re:Reportedly

[wass]

Where'd you get a l33t 3Mhz PC?

Hey, it is totally 1337 with the 3MHz CPU if you can interface it to a rad ATI Radeon 9700, where the graphic card's embedded processor(s) are clocked at a higher frequency than your own little CPU's clocking rate.

It's kind of like VGER-esque, an ancient computer souped up with high-tech data storage and IO equipement.

Re:Reportedly

[Sj0]

That's too bad. I had a 286 with an unprecedented 8 MB of RAM, and I couldn't find anything to *do* with that much memory! I ended up with a 6MB Ramdrive which sat empty most of the time.

Re:Reportedly

[Victor Tramp]

oh! you mean an Amiga!

How can you prove this document is real?

[phatboy22]

Even though it may look legit at first glance. WHen you read it again, it seems apparant that almost someone who put time and effort into writing this article, could easily have made up the percentages, figures and results.

Re:How can you prove this document is real?

[jpetts]

... could easily have made up the percentages, figures and results.

Surely that proves it's from Microsoft?

The executive summary

[Adam Rightmann]

Don't criticize Open Source software, it can backfire.

The Germans, French and Japanese are tending towards Open Source Software.

We can share some of our source code and make inroads on Open Source software.

All in all, a rather vapid document, but at least ESR restrained himself on the asides. Funny how losing 99% of your paper wealth can make one more humble.

Anyone think this may not be a "Leak"

[Chris_Stankowitz]

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

Re:Anyone think this may not be a "Leak"

[justsomebody]

No, not at all.

If it would be it would cause them more damage than benefit.

If you're reading figures you'll notice that figures show about M$ losing ground (I can only hope it's true, if it's not then, well...) and that causes need in general public to be more informed about something called Linux. Basically, if my Neighboor is using it, I just can't be behind

Mainstream pushing and acceptance is always growing or falling faster then linear. Either something is gaining groud or loosing it, but the more public knows "current fashion" the faster that fashion is accepted.

Attention please!

[NWT]

Due to the sensitive nature of this information, please forward with discretion only to those people who can clearly gain value from it...

Ah, gain value? They mean *head-shaking* or *laughing* geeks? Oh, well ...

On the Run

[nightsweat]

We've got Microsoft on the... oh, sorry, never mind.

Re: On the Run

[Ed Avis]

"Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Torvalds,
if you think we're on the run?
We know the way to cut off your little fun,
just wait until all your hardware's Palladium!
So who do you think you are kidding, Mr Torvalds,
if you think that Redmond's done?"

"Mr Gates, whom everyone hates, has been in quite a fret.
But he'll be in control again: we're rolling out Dot-Net!
So who do you think you are kidding, Mr Torvalds,
if you think that Redmond's done?"

(Overheard at Microsoft's secret Walmington-on-C# development headquarters)

Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft

[deanc]

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! :)

Re:Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft

[tshak]

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.

Re:Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Reminds me of a story from "Zen in the Martial Arts":

The teacher draws a chalk line on the floor and asks the student how he can make it shorter. The student gives many answeres including dividing it into many pieces. The teacher says "no, no" and draws a longer line beside the first one. "Now how does it look?" the teacher asks. "Shorter."

The moral? It is always better to improve your own "line" (in the case of Linux, operating system) rather than "cut" that of another.

Re:Why negative attacks don't work for MSoft

[DunbarTheInept]

If you want to effect change, you have to point out why the new way is better than the old. And that cannot be done without at least having the unstated implication that there is something inferior about the old when compared to the new. This notion that extolling the virtues of your own product is somehow distinct from pointing out the failures of the competition's is an alien concept to me. You can't say Foo is better than Bar without also logically implying Bar is worse than Foo in the very same breath.

It's just like when MS had two different price rates for OEMs - a cheaper one if you agree to be exclusively MS, and a more expensive one if you don't. People who wanted to extoll the virtues of MS (including MS's own PR) called the cheaper rate a "discount". People who wanted to extoll the faults of MS called the cheaper rate normal and called the expensive rate a price hike, or penalty. Since a company sets prices on its products where it wants, the difference between the two phrasings is purely imaginary.

Are you kidding?

[selectspec]

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.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Planesdragon]

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

I can't speak for Ximian, but I was rather underimpressed with Red Hat 8--and I've never really even tried Linux before. (For the curious, I've got Mandrake 9 on my Linux partition now, although I don't use it very often.)

Sure, MS has real competition for the Intel-based PC now--but that's a good thing for them, not a bad thing. Competition means that they've got a challenge, which drives innovation, and good enough competition means that they're not a monopoly, which means that they can do more things than before.

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.

Really? Gee, and here I was thinking that the "easy to use" aspect of Windows, and thus less of a need to hire on Linux experts, put them about even...

or that a company with $40 billion in cash can figure out a way to justify their own existance.

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

Of course they do. The best strategies are simple and flexible, while having enough for the decision makers to "all be on the same page."

Now, their entire "business plan" probably is a bit more than two pages, but the "summary document" could very well fit on about two pages.

Re:Are you kidding?

[tshak]

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

You must mean ".NET My Services" because .NET as a technology has been rolled out and has been receiving wide acceptance.

Re:Are you kidding?

[IamTheRealMike]

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

Do you want to bet? It wouldn't surprise me if they have a LOT of people working on knowing everything there is to know about Linux, it's only smart considering that it's the only real competition.

This document is nothing special, in fact it's so boring I'd be surprised if it was faked. Maybe it was leaked intentionaly, maybe not. I dunno. What I do know is that it's quite likely they do multi-national surveys on Linux awareness/favourability quite regularly. In fact, one thing that puzzles me is that the tone of the document is one of "we haven't done this before", and this line:

"The study fielded between late-July and September 2001"

makes me think huh?? Who the hell waits a year before presenting a 2 page document like this? It can't possibly have taken a year to analyse a survey like that.

Anyway, don't have any doubt that they know all about Linux. They have some people monitoring the wine-devel lists as it is, and apparently a large number of their senior tech guys are well briefed about it. I know one of the Passport heads is familiar with WineX :) I expect they have people who's job actually involves reading slashdot. Funny in a way, but why wouldn't they? Easiest place to get news on open source happenings.

/me waves - hi there Microsoft person! Hope you're having fun :)

Re:Are you kidding?

[CommandNotFound]

You must mean ".NET My Services" because .NET as a technology has been rolled out and has been receiving wide acceptance.

I'm guessing he was talking about marketing to the IT Pros/PHBs, many of whom are still scratching their heads about what to do about it and wondering where the install disk is that will make their software run on Web Services. Others don't want to use .Net because they'll have to use Passport. The rest are now saying "Whatever happened to .Net?" (I was actually asked this by a fairly tech-savvy MBA recently). Yes, I know all these are untrue, but most non-techies don't understand this real purpose of .Net or what it is supposed to be (a product? a new version of Windows? something to do with the Web?)

The truth is, they should have pitched it as a new API replacing Win32. Not as sexy, but much closer to the truth.

Re:Are you kidding?

[bogie]

"but I was rather underimpressed with Red Hat 8--and I've never really even tried Linux before"

The second part explains the first part.

If you had been using linux for any length of time you would recognize Redhat 8 as the breakthrough distro that it is. Sure we've had distros like Corel who showed that you could make the linux desktop workable. But now with Redhat 8 you have the leading distro putting out a release that's usuable right NOW by any small business who just needs access to the basics like web, email, and an office suite. Its also their first real attempt at making a linux desktop.

So while its still not eveyones cup of tea, especially home users, you need some perspecive on why the rest of the IT commuity and well rounded linux users see what's right about it.

Re:Are you kidding?

[unicron]

I get so tired of the Microsoft VS. Linux arguement. I really don't know what the big deal is. I run Windows 2000 at home. I've yet to have systems crash yet with it. I'm almost to 4 months uptime. It runs all the software I want without lame ports, emulation, or cheesy rip-offs. It found all my hardware when I booted up and uses it to its full potential. With the exception of graphics drivers, I can update peripheral without having to reboot. I can switch network settings as will without having to reboot.

My experiences with Linux, however, have been hellish nightmares:

Debian: Nice system, install ridiculously and overly difficult.
SuSE: First boot up I had 4 arrow icons for my mouse flying everywhere. SuSE guys next to me that had sworn by it shrugged and went back to Tux Racer.
Redhat: Can't push X past 800x600, resulting in icons the size of quarters. Keep in mind I have a geforce3.

Now, the majority of you will go you "you could've fixed this and that by editing this and changing that and rewriting these 30 lines of code yatta yatta yatta" but who gives a fuck. It's a computer. It's supposed to make my life A: Easier or B: More Fun.

Until the day when Linux supports any and every piece of hardware the day it's released, the installations can be done my grandma, and all software hits store shelves in both Windows and Linux version on the same day, Linux will never be a contender for the desktop market.

Reply to this, don't mod it down because you don't agree. If you really think you're right, you'll be able to prove it.

Re:Are you kidding?

[IamTheRealMike]

Now, the majority of you will go you "you could've fixed this and that by editing this and changing that and rewriting these 30 lines of code yatta yatta yatta" but who gives a fuck. It's a computer. It's supposed to make my life A: Easier or B: More Fun.

Nah, I'm not going to say that. I don't really know what I'd say, all that stuff you mentioned (except for debian) has always worked fine for me and my friends. I had to go download the official nVidia drivers to get good performance, but you have to do the same on Windows (except from CD instead of the net). I'd guess sometimes Win2K installs go awry too - or do you really think Windows is perfection itself?

Until the day when Linux supports any and every piece of hardware the day it's released, the installations can be done my grandma, and all software hits store shelves in both Windows and Linux version on the same day, Linux will never be a contender for the desktop market.

Wrong. Linux already is a contender for the desktop market. Most people don't buy hardware on the day it's released, and for most apps there are either Linux equivalents, the maker is considering porting it or it's close to working under Wine. Note: I said *most*, not all. Most apps is good enough for most people.

Anyway, the next battle isn't for people like you, it's for the business desktop, where stuff like the cumulative cost and TCO of Windows (2k or XP) is a big issue. Maybe in a few years we'll have all those issues nailed, and then you'll find that Linux makes your computer easier and more fun too.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Jagasian]

So what? I have a friend that built his own computer, installed Windows 2000 on it, and had nothing more his OS crashing every 15 minutes. Now I am sure there was something that he could have done to fix the issues, but its a computer that is supposed to make his life easier and more fun. So just because a particular person has trouble installing an OS doesn't mean there is something wrong with the OS. The person installing it just doesn't know what they are doing.

Re:Are you kidding?

[metacosm]

This is a troll -- but I will bite.

First of all, what is the total cost of the software you run?

If you built your own PC out of parts, you have to purchase your operating system, office, development tools, etc. Lets do a ballpark on just those 3 things (from Microsoft.com). Microsoft Windows 2000 Pro (319), Microsoft Office XP Pro (579), Microsoft .Net Pro Studio (1079). Now assuming you don't do anything else, you just spent 2 grand on software.

You could probably easily spend another 5 grand on other useful tools (depending on your trade) such as Oracle, ESRI, and much much more...

Do you steal software? That is illegal, and to some people that is unacceptable, so they use linux, rather than simply stealing what they want.

The interesting thing is that "Warez" is probably helping Microsoft by adding to network effect. If everyone had to purchase all the software they used their would be a much faster migration to linux (I believe).

Despite your personal beliefs, I think that linux is becoming a contender on the business desktop. For an array of reasons. The most important of these reasons is cost. Google(run on linux) for information about successful linux deployments, lots of big companies are starting todo it.

Re:Are you kidding?

[rppp01]

Anyway, the next battle isn't for people like you, it's for the business desktop...

I can't agree with this. I may use linux and support linux, but I know that the 'war on the desktop' isn't just about TCO or the server or just the Business Desktop. If that were true, then games wouldn't be the big issue that they are. I consider Desktop Linux to be finally getting to adolescence. Unfortunately, linux has to chase Windows and OSX for desktop friendliness and their definition of usability.

His delema is one we should be concerned with. Driver issues related to 'binary only drivers' and 4 mouse icons on a fubar X desktop and games that don't work unless you download such and such and multimedia that won't work unless you tweak this file and load this module and restart that service. These need to work for the home user. The home user is what the ultimate goal of Desktop Linux is.
Server Linux is already mature. I am not worried about that. Business Desktop Linux? Damn close. Home User Linux? Nope. I wouldn't dare put it on my gf's parents' computers. No way. I barely trust them to use windows as it is. And this is still the majority of the people out there.
Of course, driver issues occur on every OS. Of course bugs will be had by all, and security issues will occur. But home users don't give a shit about that (unless they are technically enclined). They want a box that will play WC3, run AOL, load up that neat site with all the pop ups, play the media files included in their emails. Linux is inching that direction. Yay. But it isn't there, yet.

yet.

Re:Are you kidding?

[unicron]

It's not a troll. Don't think because I have a varying opinion on something that I'm just some asshole looking to start some shit.

As for your belief, business, the one's spending the BIG cash, do have to buy their software, and they still buy Microsoft products, so I can't agree with that belief.

Re:Are you kidding?

[pavera]

All I know is that the last time I tried to set up a wireless nic in windows XP it took 5 hours, 7 different drivers, and 2 reinstalls of service pack 1, and that was with a 2 year old wireless NIC, same nic under linux (since redhat 7.1) comes up during the install, thats the only hardware problem I've had with either system, on 6 different machines... but it was windows that didn't properly support the hardware.. not linux.

As far as desktop apps, the only thing I'm waiting for is good financial software, and then I can totally ditch windows... and so can all of my clients, and all of my family members...

Open Office is very much good enough for at least 90% of computer users... web browsing with mozilla is better, email/calendaring is getting close (if evolution had a server product like exchange, to share calendars it would be much better) but its still passable right now as a small/medium sized business solution and certainly for home use its great.

If Intuit ported Quicken/Quickbooks tomorrow, 4 law offices, and 2 accouting offices that I do IT work for would all be moved to linux by the end of the year. So its really getting close, and its not nearly as far off as you make it sound.

TCO is much lower for linux, 2 of these offices have linux file/email/web servers running on old p200's with 64mb of ram... the other 4 have windows 2000 servers which require much better hardware, and are constantly breaking. I haven't even looked at the two linux boxes for 4 months (well, ok I've ssh'd to them and typed "up2date -u " to get the latest packages...but that takes less than 30 seconds, and is included in my monthly retainer fee), but I've seen each of the win2k servers in the last week... so you figure who's paying me more money... yeah the windows users...

point is, its getting close, closer than I think most people realize...

Re:Are you kidding?

[epukinsk]

I think Red Hat 8 is a little like base camp 2 on Everest. Red Hat dove into the server/developer Linux market before it was clear it was there. They budgeted their supplies to make it to the corporate desktop without dying. Now, base camp 3--the home desktop--is a ways away, but they're a step closer and the corporate desktop will build up supplies for that trek.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Outland Traveller]

I can't speak for Ximian, but I was rather underimpressed with Red Hat 8--and I've never really even tried Linux before.

This is really incredulous to me.. I remember showing Redhat Linux to some friends, who had never known anything but windows and macintosh systems.

They were blown away. They were totally incredulous that such a distribution of OS, development tools, and large array of real applications was 100% Free and largely developed and maintained by worldwide communities of independent programmers.

If you are not completely astounded by this fact, then you have some serious entitlement issues to work out.

The fact that linux is better at some things than the MS operating systems and worse at others is insignificant in comparison.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Abcd1234]

You forget that the current economic climate is a little... rocky. Even big businesses are looking for places to recover cash. As a result, Linux *could* gain market share because it offers a companies real savings, both in terms of up front licensing costs, as well as long term TCO. Well, in theory, anyway. ;)

Re:Are you kidding?

[An Onerous Coward]

Student software isn't real software. Sure, it may suffice for most student uses. But the licensing restrictions mean that once you get out into the real world and want to compile a commercial product, you have to either A) buy the same software all over again.

Also, there are hidden costs. Your school probably paid Microsoft an appreciable amount of cash for the right to sell their software so cheap. Cash which they took from you in the form of tuition.

Yes, there are legal ways to get all that software without paying full retail, and it's great that you could fulfill your needs cheaply and legally. But don't pretend that "certain people are able to get MS software at a steep discount" == "it is stupid to claim MS software is expensive". The point stands.

Re:Are you kidding?

[DunbarTheInept]

Really? Gee, and here I was thinking that the "easy to use" aspect of Windows, and thus less of a need to hire on Linux experts, put them about even...

Windows is easier to LEARN. It is not, however, easier to USE unless the uses to which you put your computer are very trivial.

Re:Are you kidding?

[DunbarTheInept]

It's not a troll. Don't think because I have a varying opinion on something that I'm just some asshole looking to start some shit.

(I think you meant "differing opinion". A "varying opinion" would be one that keeps changing.

"troll" is one of those words that has changed meaning through the massive overpowering force of the ignorance of the majority. When first coined as an online term, it meant what you imply - it referred to people stating controversial things EVEN THOUGH they don't necessarily believe them - they just state them because they are assholes who think starting arguments is a form of entertainment. Nowadays, however, it has come to mean ANY controversial argument-inducing post, even the heartfelt honest ones. Where am I going with this? Well, I'm just pointing out that just because he called you a troll doesn't necessarily mean he though you were insincere. There are a lot of people who don't use the term that way anymore.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Planesdragon]

"It's free so it has to be better..."

Wow, I had no idea that the old anti-OSS argument had been reversed. It's great that OSS is free and all--but that doesn't mean that it's better (or even as good as) the for-pay alternative.

I can work on my car for free, too--but if I want it to really work, I pay someone to do it.

If you are not completely astounded by this fact, then you have some serious entitlement issues to work out.

The fact that linux is better at some things than the MS operating systems and worse at others is insignificant in comparison.

That attitude is why MS software is simply better, for every application that I'm likely to put a computer in my home to task as in the forseeable future.

The fact that the code is free doesn't matter--not if I have to spend more of my time's value setting it up, getting used to it, and maintaining it than I would by simply purchasing / upgrading to the MS solution.

Linux can be (and is) a breeze to set up--but that doesn't mean it's a breeze to get working on it, or that just because it's free that it's worth the time to use.

Or to put it another way:

Re:Are you kidding?

[zurab]

As for your belief, business, the one's spending the BIG cash, do have to buy their software, and they still buy Microsoft products, so I can't agree with that belief.

Belief? I think it's more than just belief. If you read some feedback from businesses that are spending this cash, they are complaining that they are being forced to constantly upgrade, pay, subscribe, and fall into whatever one of the recent Microsoft licensing schemes orders them to do... and then it is so! Not because they voluntarily agree to, but because they are forced by a monopoly.

And, it is has to be weighed in also that Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market to illegally kill off its competitors. It is also subject of further investigation in Europe with similar tactics involving server software, including Win2k.

So, while I agree with you, that for any desktop OS to become popular it has to be extremely easy to use, support all hardware, most software, etc., etc., it is also not too difficult to see why the circumstances are not perfect. For example, as far as the hardware gadgets are concerned, Microsoft doesn't make drivers or software for most of these gadgets, the hardware manufacturers do. If MS was successfully stopped to inflict its wrath on OEMs so they are free to ship PCs with any other OSes (read what happened with BeOS) without requiring most users to delete or uninstall (already paid for) Windows, then you would see what competition could bring to the desktop market. Other OSes, preinstalled, would gain some market share; hardware manufacturers would actually make software for them; MS OSes would not support *all* hardware flawlessly because all software would not be made specifically to satisfy MS. Regarding the last point, if you haven't seen already, check out the "driver signing" in WinXP, looks pretty close to extortion if you think about it.

Finally, it is OK if you choose to ignore any of the above. State the obvious - "all hardware and software is made for Windows, therefore I use it". But it is not OK to put undue blame or make it look as if - "hey! MS does it, why can't these Linux guys? They really suck!" without at least noting why things are certain bad way in the desktop market. Failure to recognize that may make stating such a belief seem like unreasonable at best.

BTW, I have been using SuSE since 5.x versions, I never experienced the problem you describe.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Anarchofascist]

Reply to this, don't mod it down because you don't agree.

Microsoftie discovers /. social engineering?

Re:Are you kidding?

[Tomster]

Add:

4. legal/political

Many people are starting to believe Microsoft is trying to make Open Source software illegal, either directly or by pushing laws requiring software to use DRM/security technologies which -- by happy coincidence of course -- Microsoft will already have implemented.

They can't fight Linux/OSS in price, and they are starting to lose ground in the feature wars. TCO leans more towards Linux/OSS every year. So they have changed the playing field. Instead of fighting just on the technology or business battlefield, they're now moving towards the legal battlefield.

-Thomas

Re:Are you kidding?

[metacosm]

Wow -- at least someone knew what I meant. Thanks

Re:Are you kidding?

[TheFrood]

Redhat: Can't push X past 800x600, resulting in icons the size of quarters. Keep in mind I have a geforce3.

Odd. I have a GF2 at work and a GF4 at home, and I run 1600x1200 in both places. Which version of RedHat are you using? Did you download nVidia's drivers?

Re:Are you kidding?

[bellings]

Odd. I have a GF2 at work and a GF4 at home, and I run 1600x1200 in both places. Which version of RedHat are you using? Did you download nVidia's drivers?

The new nVidia drivers get downloaded and automatically installed when a user clicks on the RedHat up2date icon on the desktop, right?

Re:Are you kidding?

[nathanh]

Your argument is based around the cost of software being excessive. Well lets see; I was a student until recently (June 02) and I've bought all my software so...

... so now you need to rebuy all that software. The student discount prices only apply WHILE YOU ARE A STUDENT. Once you stop being a student you have to purchase the full copies. If you're still using those "cheap" student versions then you're no better than a warez pirate.

Perhaps you should check what people do before assuming that MS software is very expensive.

Microsoft software is expensive. You have already admitted that you're stealing it, so of course it seems cheaper to you.

Re:Are you kidding?

[nathanh]

That's what I love about this webpage. Someone posts an intelligent, well written post about how he feels Linux isn't all it's cracked up to be and he gets called a troll.

If he'd gone onto alt.christians.prolife and started defending abortion then he'd be a troll too, no matter how intelligent and well-written his arguments were. A troll is someone who goes out of his way to start an argument. The term is derived from the fishing technique "trolling". Lambasting Linux - no matter how well deserved and how truthful the statements - on slashdot is trolling, pure and simple. The fact that I agree with what he said doesn't sway my opinion of what he did.

The majority of you fuckers are so hypocritical I want to vomit bile. You claim to be all enlightened and open minded but you're the most hard headed, stubborn, and ignorant sub-niche of the entire computing universe.

Enlightened people don't feel the need to tell everybody how enlightened they are. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Are you kidding?

[danox]

I can't speak for Ximian, but I was rather underimpressed with Red Hat 8--and I've never really even tried Linux before. (For the curious, I've got Mandrake 9 on my Linux partition now, although I don't use it very often.)

This kinda sets the tone for your bizare post. You don't like a version of an OS that you have no experience in and little exposure to. . . . . and?

Sure, MS has real competition for the Intel-based PC now--but that's a good thing for them, not a bad thing. Competition means that they've got a challenge, which drives innovation, and good enough competition means that they're not a monopoly, which means that they can do more things than before.

You seem to not have even the basic understanding of microsoft. Are you aware that they were found to be a monopoly in a fairly recent court case? A monopoly does not do well against competition, it functions by squezing out any and all competition, and has absolutely nothing to do with inovation. MS does not inovate anything except their monolopolistic marketing practices. They take existing concepts and products and provide polished (sometimes broken) implementations that fit in with their other products and strengthen their monopoly.

Really? Gee, and here I was thinking that the "easy to use" aspect of Windows, and thus less of a need to hire on Linux experts, put them about even...
or that a company with $40 billion in cash can figure out a way to justify their own existance.

Microsoft products are not inherently easy to use. This ease of use factor is a myth, stemming from the fact that the microsoft way is ubiquitous , on account of their monopoly position. MS interfaces are often substandard, illogical and even sometimes just plain broken. I have recently introduced linux webservers into my company and the feedback I am getting from IT people with pure MS backgrounds is that (for example) apache is way easier to set up than IIS, on account of there is one config file where everything is explained in detail, rather than a confusing series of options in a weird tree format with not much explanation as to what everything does.

Of course they do. The best strategies are simple and flexible, while having enough for the decision makers to "all be on the same page."

Now, their entire "business plan" probably is a bit more than two pages, but the "summary document" could very well fit on about two pages.

come on, seriously, this is supposedly a paper detailing the results of some market research on linux use by MS customers. Now I would buy that this was an executive sumary passed around to give a heads up on things. But there is no way that this is a serious analysis on the results. What experience do you have with market research to be able to make these claims?

Re:Are you kidding?

[Planesdragon]

This kinda sets the tone for your bizare post. You don't like a version of an OS that you have no experience in and little exposure to. . . . . and?

And if I--a rather brave and intelligent computer user--aren't impressed by the latest and greatest that Red Hat has to offer (supposedly the "best OSS can do" user-friendly wise), MS isn't about to "panic" from it. Which was what I was replying to.

You seem to not have even the basic understanding of microsoft. Are you aware that they were found to be a monopoly in a fairly recent court case?

Are you aware that MS has, historically, been at its best when forced to adapt-or-die? Look at how quickly they embraced the internet, and how slow advancement in anything MS gets once their compettion dies up.

A monopoly does not do well against competition, it functions by squezing out any and all competition, and has absolutely nothing to do with inovation.(sp)

Microsoft was not always a monopoly; they are a very adaptable company with some rather driven managers and employees.

MS does not inovate anything except their monolopolistic marketing practices. They take existing concepts and products and provide polished (sometimes broken) implementations that fit in with their other products and strengthen their monopoly.

Wait--they take other people's ideas, and make them "better?" By golly, that's the textbook definition of innovation!

Yes, MS has shady marketing practicies. But they're also innovative--look at what they did with MS Bob, how they extended HTML to enable round-tripping of documents, and all the uproar they caused when they debuted a (gasp!) wholly new feature called Smart Tags last year.

Microsoft products are not inherently easy to use. This ease of use factor is a myth, stemming from the fact that the microsoft way is ubiquitous , on account of their monopoly position. MS interfaces are often substandard, illogical and even sometimes just plain broken.

MS's products are easy to use simply because they are (1) ubiquitous, (2) standardized (moreso than OSS), and (3) easy to setup.

It's a moot question if someone else's current UI would be as easy if it was suddenly in MS's position.

I have recently introduced linux webservers into my company and the feedback I am getting from IT people with pure MS backgrounds is that (for example) apache is way easier to set up than IIS, on account of there is one config file where everything is explained in detail, rather than a confusing series of options in a weird tree format with not much explanation as to what everything does.

Since we're taking random examples, let's take on the command line.

Assuming that you can get a windows box, open up "command.com" and type "/?" A list of commands, with short descriptions in an easy-to-read format shows up. In Bash, a "help" command spits out two columns of jargon-filled commands. The commands are often named for obscure thought processes ("more" to read something?) or inside jokes, to boot.

(IIS is something I, thankfully, have no experience in. I've heard that it's both a pain to figure out and very powerful once you do figure it out... but it's also a server thing, which is not where MS shines.)

come on, seriously, this is supposedly a paper detailing the results of some market research on linux use by MS customers. Now I would buy that this was an executive sumary passed around to give a heads up on things. But there is no way that this is a serious analysis on the results. What experience do you have with market research to be able to make these claims?

Hey, I didn't post the article. I simply counter-pointed a post.

ESR seemed to think that it was valid, viable, and worth writing an article on. If you don't think it's what it is, then flame him, not me.

Re:Are you kidding?

[DunbarTheInept]

I consider uses of a computer where you don't ever add new functionality and instead just use programs provided by others to be "trivial" uses. Not that they aren't important (trivial != irrelevant), but that they aren't very taxing on the system design. It doesn't take much to make a system function well under that situation, and as such it's not a good measure of how good or bad the OS is. It's not that it's trivial from the user's point of view - it's trivial from the OS's point of view.

Re:its bogus

[tomknight]

Read http://opensource.org/halloween/faq.php for a little info on this. Yes, it may be a fake, but it may not. Read it?

Tom.

Making Linux A REAL Alternative

[SailorBob]

In the memo it's stated that:

While respondents cited OSS's 'low Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)' as one of the best reasons to support OSS, an 'alternative to Microsoft' did not lag far behind. A plurality (40%) of all respondents felt that a low TCO was the best reason to support OSS. One-third of all respondents cited 'an alternative to Microsoft' as one of the best reasons to support OSS.

I think that yearning among home and business users for, quite simply, "an alternative to Microsoft," is one of the strongest cards we have to play. Unfortunately, Linux is only really an alternative in the server markte at the moment. In the desktop market it's still not quite there. And that's where we need to put our efforts.

Re:Making Linux A REAL Alternative

[bmajik]

You're right. The alleged document seems to indicate that it's a dead heat between "low TCO" and "ABM".

Internally, theres an acronym called "ABM", meaning "Anything But Microsoft". ABM is the attitude most slashdotters seem to have, and it is a very real problem that MS faces when talking to some customers.

This is interesting because Low TCO is an objective, measurable, business related reason. ABM however is a bit more of an emotional reaction that may or may not make any business sense, and may or may not be the result of due dilligence work.

So of the people surveyed that liked OSS, objectivity and irrationality were about neck and neck. I find that interesting, and honestly, not surprising.

Incidentally, ESR got the letter and the meaning of acronym "BDM" wrong. It's unfortuneate that so many people pay him any creedence, because he's a bit of an over-the-top blowhard.

I can hear the preview now...

[ocie]

scary piano music in the background...

Deep voice: Just whn you thought it was safe to turn off your computer..

Someone in a Bill Gates mask jumps out from behind the desk and starts chasing the user while brandishing a giant paperclip.

Paperclip: You look like you're being hunted by a madman in a Bill Gates mask. Do you need any help?

Re:I can hear the preview now...

[sharkey]

scary piano music in the background...

You mean Toccata and Fugue in D Minor? 1.8 MB

Re:I can hear the preview now...

[glitch_]

I have to say, that version of Toccata was...ummmm...not good. Quite lifeless and flat, and alot of the impact points were cut short.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:I can hear the preview now...

[sharkey]

I have to say, I didn't conduct it, I didn't play any of the instruments, I didn't rip it and I didn't post it to the web. All I did was use Google to find the first result that sounded halfway decent.

Re:I can hear the preview now...

[glitch_]

I believe you. :) I was just stating my opinion on it. It was probably very hard to find anything that would have sounded halfway decent, considering anything worth its weight would probably been removed by either the record companies or the hosting companies.

Re:I can hear the preview now...

[sharkey]

Well, I'm sure my tin ear would make it even harder for me.

Great Idea From MSFT

[KarmaBitch]

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.

Viral... hehe..
What a great idea. Anyone want to start a project on SourceForge for an OpenSource Outlook virus?

Re:Great Idea From MSFT

[curtisk]

hahaha....thats actually a funny idea!

Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[tshak]

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.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[cduffy]

"Smoking crack" isn't a random insult along the lines of "your momma", but rather an element of established jargon (indeed, I'm more than a bit suprised that it's not in the Jargon File). It may be a bit more of an in-crowd-targeted piece of commentary than need be, but by no means is it childish. "Grow up" thus probably isn't the appropriate response -- at least not targeted at ESR.

Perhaps I've been lucky thus far, but most of the upper-management types I've known thus far either were once hackerly types themselves (particularly in the case of tech companies) or rely heavily on their (current or former) hackerly types to provide advice on related issues. Hence, I see this not as so serious an issue as you paint it to be.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[bryanbrunton]

No, the world needs fewer uptight weenies like you.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[ryanvm]

Hmmm, so one mildly out of place comment by a proven Linux veteran would cause you to disregard his advice forever? Yeah - he needs to grow up.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[tshak]

That's not what I said. It doesn't bother ME at all, but it does make him look childish in certain eyes. PHB's are their own culture, and they are less rational then emotional.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[plover]

The original poster has a very valid point. You should not presume to know how someone else will react to different phrases.

A joke like "smoking crack" is funny to many people. But it will not be funny to every person. Consider the director who spends her Saturday afternoons volunteering at the soup kitchen, or Tuesday nights counseling battered women at a local shelter. "Smoking crack" is very much not a punchline to her.

Defending this by claiming it is "jargon" only works if the person reading the report is up on current jargon; and that will almost always not include the CEO. (I'm quite sure our CEO here does not read Slashdot.) In any case, business writing style dictates that jargon is frowned upon when preparing reports that will go higher than your immediate boss.

In business, you must write for your target audience. I've gotten dressed down for wisecracks in otherwise technical reports. Most people smile, but some have a hard time getting past someone who names computers after cartoon characters. "Smoking crack" is not going to impress them. Smoking crack will simply and needlessly offend them, and bias them against any other valid points raised.

When presenting to a wide audience, you can not afford to offend, because you cannot predict the outcome. This kind of report should be distributed to and read by "issue elites" in Fortune 100 corporations. This kind of wisecrack prevents that distribution. However hip your upper-management types are, remember that mine may not be as cool.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[cduffy]

A joke like "smoking crack" is funny to many people. But it will not be funny to every person. Consider the director who spends her Saturday afternoons volunteering at the soup kitchen, or Tuesday nights counseling battered women at a local shelter.

Absolutely true -- but this document isn't closely targeted at the company director; rather, it's targeted at those who are already part of the Linux camp, to allow them (us?) to better target our advocacy. The target audience doesn't include the CEO, and so jargon acceptable to the actual target audience is indeed acceptable.

In short: This report isn't aimed at Fortune 100 corporations. It's aimed at those who prepare documents to be read by fortune 100 corporations -- letting us know where to focus our emphasis and where we no longer need bother.

Re:Linux needs a more professional evangelist

[plover]

You can say it however you like.

But I work for a megacorp. I am a technical architect that has rather a lot of say as to what ends up on the 42,500 machines under my team's control. I would love to have some ammunition to load up and fire against the Redmond wannabees that pollute our Technical Architecture committee. I'd love to say "Hey, here are 42,500 computers that you want to license Windows XP on at $xxx/license. Why don't we sign on with IBM Linux Support and have them support a Red Hat distro just for us for 1/100th of that amount. And look what Microsoft thinks of this idea."

And I can't use this document as a reference, because it looks childish.

So you can sit here and amuse yourself, and laugh at all the crack smoking jokes you want. Hell, you can smoke crack and laugh at every word I've written, mod me down, I don't care. I'm trying to find ways to get 42,500 computers off of Windows NT 4.0 and onto Linux. And I can't do it with this paper because I know my soup-kitchen-volunteering director would not be amused by a document that slams Microsoft as a bunch of crack-smokers. She knows that's not literallly true, so she won't buy the rest of the document. She won't pass it up the chain. It has no credibility.

It's just like the subject says: Linux needs a more professional evangelist.

FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[gosand]

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.

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[MissMyNewton]

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.

Might as well shut down Slashdot, in that case...

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[Lord Bitman]

"I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS."

That does well for people who are actually Pro-OSS, but what about people who are just Anti-Microsoft and Nuetral on OSS?
Counter-statement: "Most people on /. are Pro-OSS, though"
Counter-Counter-statement: Well then they're already pro-OSS, no need for your post.

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[gosand]

I think if you are anti-Microsoft, don't mention OSS. Don't say "Microsoft 5ux0r5, Linux rules!". It gives OSS a bad name. Bash MS all you want, I am not saying they don't deserve it. But don't do it in the name of GNU/Linux/OSS.

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS."

I've been saying that all along, only in a different context. Slashdot's behaviour of reporting flamebait MS stories isn't doing much good for the community's credibility. It feels like a "it's cool to hate Microsoft!" club.

Frankly, any story about MS these days causes lots of people to roll their eyes. Then, it's balanced with a "Hey look, another guy got Linux up and running!" story. It paints the picture that MS = Bad because Linux = good. Unfortunately, that won't do a whole lot to convince MS users to switch to Linux. It's a religious debate. Inject some professionalism and objectivity into Slashdot, and people will make their decisions more intelligently.

Let me put it another way: MS's updates to the SP3 EULA are an annoyance. They are not a reason to switch to Linux. However, Linux being free and not caring about how many copies I have is a reason to switch to Linux when I get my next computer. The difference is subtle, but it's there.

Choose your battles. Fight everything and you'll gain nothing.

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[Lord Bitman]

Every time anybody says "Micro$oft" or the like, god shoots a baby in the head.

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[gosand]

Every time anybody says "Micro$oft" or the like, god shoots a baby in the head.

Charlton Heston will be thrilled to know that there are guns in Heaven. ;-)

Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!

[Anonvmous Coward]

"This makes it completely unusable where privacy of data matters (patient medical data is a recent high-profile example, insert several others here)."

Fine argument except I don't have data pertinent to anybody. I'm not convinced that somebody couldn't get into my Windows box anyway, so what's the point in blocking MS off?

That's not the focus of my point, though. I don't care. I don't keep sensitive data no my computer. That's why it's not a reason for me to switch. It's a reason for me to not keep sensitive data on my machine.

Top countries looking on Linux with favor:

[Hayzeus]

Among those aware, favorability was highest among the Germans, French, and Brazilians

What? No Finns? How terribly unpatriotic of them!

Re:Top countries looking on Linux with favor:

[Cheese Cracker]

What? No Finns? How terribly unpatriotic of them!

The survey was not Finnished...

Re:Top countries looking on Linux with favor:

[jgerman]

What? No Finns? How terribly unpatriotic of them!

The survey was not Finnished...

Hmm allready posted so can't use my mod points so:

(Score 5:, Horrible, Bad, Pun, Pretty Damn Funny)

Not strategy, just an attitude survey

[Animats]

This is more the result of a survey than a strategy document. This reads like something a low-level manager tasked to subcontract out a survey would write. Unlike the original Halloween memo, which was a higher-level document, this is just an internal report.

The high rate of acceptance of Linux in Japan is significant. Be thinking about the implications of that.

What happens if you submit a good kernel patch in Japanese?

Re:Not strategy, just an attitude survey

[Anonymous DWord]

What happens if you submit a good kernel patch in Japanese?

I imagine it wouldn't work too well. The patches I've seen have mostly been in C.

Link to Doc VII Without ESR Commentary?

[dgenr8]

Has anyone posted a version without ESR's self-serving commentary? I'd like to read the whole thing and draw my own conclusions.

Free software, like sex, is better without ESR

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

According to the article, here are some interesting statistics:

64% say they like Linux because it's "Not Microsoft" -- some obvious discontent!

30% of French, 27% of German, and 23% of Brazilian respondents believe that a Linux solution offers a lower TCO than proprietary software -- obviously, they know about administration costs.

Linux favorability among the Linux familiar was 95% -- looks like it has some diehard fans :)

93% of Swedes, 84% of the French, and 75% of Germans and said that messages that rely on an abstract discussion of intellectual property rights are effective -- obviously the product of socialism, but it nevertheless shows that open source philosophy may have a chance.

Re:Free software, like sex, is better without ESR

[Isle]

I thought that was 95%, maybe the percantage varies in upto 82% of the cases that statement is used.

We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[gosand]

I was surprised the reviewer didn't comment on this section:

Closing, those who are familiar with OSS and Linux are favorably predisposed towards them. Linking this work with other on-point research, we can assume that in the majority of cases this reported 'favorability' is more emotional than it is rational. Given this context, we should not expect rational arguments focused on undermining support for OSS, Linux and the GPL to perform well. In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument, and focus on delivering positive Shared Source messages that contain transparent, audience specific proof points.

Excuse me? Because people in Microsoft's survey were supportive of OSS, that means that they were predisposed to like it, and therefore is based on emotion and not rationality?! This doesn't make any sense. What is this trying to say, that people who like OSS are simply using it to make a statement, and not becaue they legitimately prefer it? That is a pretty arrogant assessment of the FACTS if you ask me. I use OSS because I find it to be a better product, for several different practical reasons. And since when is it a rule that you can't be rational AND emotional about something?

Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[jaymzter]

What I find interesting is that these respondents, who are dismissed as being emotionally motivated, also ranked Linux higher based on TOC. Where is the emotion in that? It seems like a case of seeing what you want to see, not what is really there.

Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[TheFrood]

Excuse me? Because people in Microsoft's survey were supportive of OSS, that means that they were predisposed to like it, and therefore is based on emotion and not rationality?! This doesn't make any sense. What is this trying to say, that people who like OSS are simply using it to make a statement, and not becaue they legitimately prefer it? That is a pretty arrogant assessment of the FACTS if you ask me. I use OSS because I find it to be a better product, for several different practical reasons. And since when is it a rule that you can't be rational AND emotional about something?

What this says about Microsoft is that they believe their own propaganda. If you spend day after day, week after week, and year after year repeating something, you will eventually come to believe it, whether or not you believed it at first. The people at Microsoft have spent so much time arguing that their products are better than anything else available, that they now believe that it's impossible for that not to be true. In their mind, anyone who thinks otherwise must be speaking from emotion, because they can't conceive how anyone could rationally disagree with them.

TheFrood

Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[mjh]

Excuse me? Because people in Microsoft's survey were supportive of OSS, that means that they were predisposed to like it, and therefore is based on emotion and not rationality?!

Yeah, I read that too. But recall that they also say, "Linking this with other on-point research...". We don't have access to the other on-point research. They do. We don't know what that research says or doesn't say. It may very well be fair for them to make the conclusion that they made. We don't know.

$.02.

Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[gosand]

Yeah, I read that too. But recall that they also say, "Linking this with other on-point research...". We don't have access to the other on-point research. They do. We don't know what that research says or doesn't say. It may very well be fair for them to make the conclusion that they made. We don't know.

Maybe that other mysterious research was:
Every time you read one of our new EULA's, how do you feel?

pissed off

disappointed

scared

apathetic

frustrated

confused

fucked

all of the above

If you are supportive of OSS, how does your current relationship with Microsoft make you feel?

pissed off

disappointed

scared

apathetic

frustrated

confused

fucked

all of the above

If you said that you are supportive of OSS, how would a visit from a team of our lawyers make you feel?

pissed off

disappointed

scared

apathetic

frustrated

confused

fucked

all of the above

Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!

[Observer]

Closing, those who are familiar with OSS and Linux are favorably predisposed towards them. Linking this work with other on-point research, we can assume that in the majority of cases this reported 'favorability' is more emotional than it is rational. Given this context, we should not expect rational arguments focused on undermining support for OSS, Linux and the GPL to perform well.

In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument, and focus on delivering positive Shared Source messages that contain transparent, audience specific proof points.

Or, MS could just compete fairly on the merits of its products and services, rather than imitating the behavior of the proverbial 800-pound gorilla against its competitors and - some are beginning to think - its paying customers, and so provoking many people into emotionally favoring alternatives to MS (a recurring chorus in the survey). Chances are that it would still do pretty well.

Definition of Developer

[warmcat]

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.

Re:Definition of Developer

[PissedOffGuy]

thus ESR is wrong. it is indeed interesting how ESR is totally out of touch from the real world.

Re:Definition of Developer

[SPYvSPY]

Developers, developers, developers, developers....yeah...yes!

Re:Definition of Developer

[rlowe69]

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.

ESR is confusing the issue and I agree with you, probably mistaken. "Anbody with a technical clue" could have a many many levels. Half of the pimply-faced college students that comment on slashdot have a technical clue (ie. maybe use free software in some capacity), but that doesn't mean they hack OSS or even care about code at all.

Microsoft is obviously looking at the 'people who write software's opinion, as they are the ones directly affected by SharedSource. The other people with a clue are only indirectly affected by work done by the code writers.

Aren't APPS the real issue?

[httpamphibio.us]

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...

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[schlach]

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.

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[Jason Earl]

The reason to clone Windows (to some extent) is that the switching costs from Windows to Linux is far and away the largest cost in a Linux migration.

I agree with you. I use Linux because I like Linux's toolset, but in order to displace Microsoft we are going to need tools that Windows users can use. My grandma isn't going to learn to use vi, and neither are most of the folks that I work with.

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[schlach]

but in order to displace Microsoft we are going to need tools that Windows users can use.

But you missed my entire point! Why is that our goal?? Why should that be the goal of anyone who does not have a direct financial incentive to get people to switch (ie, people who work for RedHat)? What happened to our goal of just having a system that does what we want it to do, because Windows doesn't? Why limit our goals to just killing Microsoft?

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Um. I would like both the underbelly of Linux and the ability to run win32 API programs. Why shouldn't Linux have the ability to do everything? It wouldn't mean you'd *have* to run Office.

There are some Linux users that desire these features. There are some people that would like to be Linux users (to save money) but cannot because they depend on certain Windows features. Why not write all the Linux features and all the Windows features? You can turn off the Windows stuff, and the people that are just doing it for the price can make it as windows like as they please.

If that many more people were interested in Linux, then there would be more cash involved, and Linux would become better for all purposes, yours and theirs. Don't forget that a lot of GPL programmers *are* paid. By companies that want specific features.

Good answer?

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[Arandir]

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!

If you build a car, it will look like a car! If you build an pickupit will look like a pickup. Ditto for desktops. I played around with my friend's iMac. Funny thing is, OSX looks like Windows! It has pretty wallpaper, pretty icons on the desktop, and a pretty panel on the bottom. Other than the menubar being on the desktop rather than the application, it might as well have been a WinXP theme.

To make a car not look like a car, you need to use a different number of wheels, put the dashboard in the back seat, etc. You might end up with a pickup, but the Slashdot crowd will complain that the front end still looks like a car and why can't we be innovative. To make KDE, GNOME, Aqua, etc., not look like the Windows desktop, you would have to remove the panel, or remove icons off the desktop, etc. This is going to have an impact on usability. And in any case, you will still have people bitching that it's a clone ("+1 for getting rid of the panel, but -5 for using toolbars in applications).

If you step out into the real world, you'll see that Chrysler owners don't bitch that their cars look like Fords. You don't see people complaining that this year's Dodge Trucks look like last years Chevy Trucks. "They're still putting the pickup bed in the back, how unoriginal can you get!"

But you can still tell a Ford from a BMW up close. They have different styles. Different lines. Different profiles. Despite the fact that they both have four wheels, hood, trunk and windows, no one is going to confuse the two. I never get confused between KDE, GNOME and Windows. If you get confused, it's because you're looking at them from too far away.

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[dzym]

Having worked extensively with networks using BIND and win2k's DNS server over the past few weeks, I can certainly say that win2k's DNS server GUI configuration makes things a helluva lot easier than BIND ever does.

IIS is almost the same way--it's quite a lot easier to add a site in IIS than to insert a vhost into Apache. Sure, you can get Apache to do more interesting stuff that would be a bit more difficult with IIS ... but you can't disagree that the basic functionality is much more easily accessible in IIS. BIND doesn't even have that defense.

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[mjh]

But you missed my entire point! Why is that our goal?? Why should that be the goal of anyone who does not have a direct financial incentive to get people to switch (ie, people who work for RedHat)? What happened to our goal of just having a system that does what we want it to do, because Windows doesn't? Why limit our goals to just killing Microsoft?

The point isn't to kill Microsoft. It's to maintain the practical ability to not become beholden to Microsoft. And that depends on being able to freely communicate through open protocols/document formats/etc. Microsoft's goal is antithetical to openness. They want to proprietize everything so that everything you do generates a payment to them. That's their motiviation. It's a fine motivation, as long as it isn't effectively implemented.

The problem is that Microsoft's goal, combined with their market share, make it increasingly more difficult to use any other computing software that isn't produced out of Redmond. Some folks have responded by wanting to kill Microsoft, dead. But the reality is that if Microsoft were effectively curtailed that most of those folks would back down from the "kill 'em dead" stance.

Getting some mom's & pop's on board is an indirect goal. The primary goal is to be able to maintain independance from beholdenness to anyone (including Microsoft). Having mom's & pop's as a 2ndary goal, is supportive of the primary goal because if there are enough people using an alternative to Microsoft, Microsoft can't arbitrarily change things without breaking compatibility with a huge population of people who'll be outraged.

Mom's & pop's provide the check and balance to an overly agressive Microsoft. This allows me to continue to expect that open network protocols will continue to work. And effectively enable me to continue using Linux.

How do we get mom's & pop's onboard? Giving them something that has a low financial cost, but a high educational cost isn't going to work. You have to give them something that is low cost in terms of ease of use as well as easy on the pocket book. Thus the desire to mimic the MS environment.

In summary: Easy to use leads to mom & pop onboard leads to prevention of MS monopoly breaking everything non-MS. This enables freedom to continue to effectively use Linux. Which is the goal.

Does that help?

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[Jason Earl]

I don't work for RedHat, but I certainly would like to see people switch from Windows to Linux. For one thing it would allow me use OpenOffice for something other than a glorified Word Viewer. It would also increase the value of my Linux skills.

Many people believe that Free Software hackers are not good at "innovating," but if you look closely at Microsoft's new Office suite the two most hyped features are a revamped Outlook (complete with a ripoff of Evolution's VFolders) and XML formats (much like OpenOffice already has). I can't help but think that once Free Software was on people's desks that innovation would happen as a matter of course. After all, we will all be able to build on a an existing codebase instead of starting over from scratch all of the time.

Becoming a mainstream operating system is simply the first milestone in a much larger goal of providing the coolest software ever. Unfortunately, right now we spend way too much time doing useful but not innovative things like reverse engineering SMB. Once we don't have to be compatible with Windows the sky is literally the limit.

Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?

[weston]

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

> Why?

Not sure about the rest, I can explain the "stick it to MS" attitude pretty easily. Microsoft, in their business practices, has two common variations on a single theme:

(1) Whenever possible, make it so people have no choice but to use their product.
(2) Whenever possible, destroy a competing product

They will bring this to bear on Linux, to be sure . The Halloween documents are about evidence that MS is doing this -- and there's evidence that most of the time, they're terrifically succesful at doing it. The urgent need to deliver a deadly blow to Microsoft's market control comes from the understanding that Microsoft will stop at nothing until Linux is not a choice -- and they won't do it by simply providing a better product, they'll do it by subverting open protocols and formats, they'll do it by creating "trusted" hardware platforms, difficult or impossible to run free software on, they'll use legal/licensing tactics, and in general, do anything they can. The only safe Microsoft -- one that will just let people who want to use Linux use Linx -- is one whose monopole market power is broken.

And all you folks who claim that #1 and #2 is just plain business -- go find a third world country to rape, OK? On a pragmatic level, markets work as a tool when companies compete to provide goods and services and compete on quality, not control of channels and information flow... it's well-known that Microsoft bullshit is exactly the sort of stuff that messes up markets. And on an ethical level -- let's just say that those style of business tactics make a business that engages them the equivalent of Tonya Harding. Do you want to win by doing your best, or sucker-punching the next guy?

'Shared source' legal death-trap

[burgburgburg]

After reading this, I'm surprised that I haven't seen more about the lawsuit risks from the NDAs and IPR restrictions involved in gaining access to 'shared source' if Microsoft interprets your actions as a competitive threat. Has anyone done a more in depth analysis of this?

Wake-up Call for OSS

[mark_space2001]

> In fact, their [Microsoft's] figures indicate that we [OSS] are winning. It looks like all we have to do is stay the course.

This is wrong. The leaked document does show that OSS is winning. The same document also shows that Microsoft knows that OSS is winning, and now Microsoft will changes it's strategy, possibly to something far more effective than it has used before.

The author of the article, who I quoted above, is wrong. Now is not the time for OSS to rest on it's laurels. Now that MS has realized it's blunders, you can bet they will be doing something about it. MS ain't stoopid, and they've got lots of money to power any initive they can dream up.

OSS projects should redouble their efforts. The community needs stable, useful technology now more than ever to battle MS with.

Re:Wake-up Call for OSS

[IPFreely]

"stay the course" means "keep doing the good work that you are already doing". It does not mean "rest on it's laurels" or "sit on your duff doing nothing" or even "make some radical change in how we are dealing with MS".

That good work already includes respond to verbal, legal and whatever other action comes along, be adaptable, and continue to make good software. If you want to encourage supporters to do MORE OF THE SAME GOOD WORK, then "Stay the course"!

[This is about the interpretation of "Stay the course", not the rest. Encouraging more work and action is always good.]

Ghandi Stage Three Attained

[__aajelt3877]

First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Ghandi

This quote has been mentioned many times in the context of M$ strategy, but this document indicates to me THEY think things are in the middle of stage 3. was a policy document, not some shiny PR.

Re:Ghandi Stage Three Attained

[spectecjr]

First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Ghandi

This quote has been mentioned many times in the context of M$ strategy, but this document indicates to me THEY think things are in the middle of stage 3. was a policy document, not some shiny PR.

So the next stage is Microsoft Wins?

The problem with quotes like this is that either side can use them to justify their 'war'. It only works when one side isn't actually doing any fighting.

News for you, bro: The Linux side is actively fighting.

Hmm..

[Loki_1929]

"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."

Thanks for clearing that up for us. I suppose we can now just do away with the comments section of /.; doesn't seem to be needed anymore.

(From m-w.com)
Editor: 1 : someone who edits especially as an occupation

Edit: 1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation

I suppose it just bothers me when those we expect to be acting at least semi-impartially while in a professional capacity (an editor for instance) decide to arbitrarily prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion. Editors often add extra information or links (when publishing online) before publishing in addition to the usual typo/spelling-corrections and such, but I suppose I'm just not too thrilled seeing opinions cut down as "idiotic" within the posting of news. To the best of my knowledge, editors are allowed to post in the comments section, and I certainly wouldn't complain about seeing the above statement there, where I believe it belongs.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

After my last month with RH8 M$ has no worries

[t0qer]

I run all my webservers on linux/php/mysql, but occassionally I get an itch to be different on my desktop, last time it was when XP released SP1 and I was so frustrated at M$ trying to keep me from pirating their software I thought i'd try and say "Fuck em!"

So I downloaded the new redhat Iso's when they came out, burned them, and wiped my system for redhat. To summarize that last month, let me just say I think having my balls cinched in a vice may be more pleasurable than trying to be productive with linux as a desktop.

Now my system is not some weak POS. It's a p4 with ultra 160, so it's very nice. The first thing I had to do was install the drivers for my nvidia card, oops that don't work, docs don't say anything, read the nvnews forums, oh ok gotta

rpmbuild --rebuild NVIDIA*.src.rpm

Ok it works.

Then it was onto my CDBurner. Again, not crappy hardware, brand spankin new Plextor dvd/cdr. ide-scsi emulator? WTF is that? Ok, I read some more, I know what it is, ok great, it's working.

Repeat process for my bt878 card and firewire.

So at this point, I pretty much had my hardware working as best it could under linux. I started setting out to get some applications going under linux. I needed some audio editing, video editing I started poking around and found some stuff that looks sweet.

tar xfzv reallysweetproggy.tar.gz ./configure
**Exit error 2**
you need to install some library.so

So i'd dig around, find the library, then find out that library wanted this library and ect and so on. Some of the stuff i'd click on the page to download it and the page would be gone, making the software I wanted to try useless.

I thought it would be cool to burn some homemmade karaoke VCD's. Previously I had used a screencapture to avi program in windows coupled with powerpoint, or a karaoke plugin with winamp and AVS.

Well, open offices impress sucked dog balls compared to powerpoint, and when it came time to burn a VCD again, the howto was linked to dependancies that returned a 404 instead of what I needed.

So with the help of a friend I gave up on linux on the desktop. Yeah it runs nice, but not nowhere near as good as how windows runs. I can tell a big difference in how UT2003 runs under XP compared to linux, and sorry but the penguin is slow here too.

I hope linux gets over these problems on the desktop, it would be cool if it actually were an freely availiable OS for download, but linux just isn't that right now.

And if you don't believe I use linux, click the link on my sig. All PHP/postnuke/MySQL goodness runnin on linux, not my desktop. For now that's how it has to be.

Re:After my last month with RH8 M$ has no worries

[jgerman]

I love posts like this, they're easy to respond to. I've never had a problem with linux as a desktop. And I am incredibly more productive with linux as oppsosed to Windows.

Not that my one testimonial of a good experience is worth anymore than your bad one, but the point is for every bad experience, at least one good experience can be produced. I'd be willing to bet that for every bad experience more than one good one can be produced, otherwise the number of linux users would be shrinking rather than growing.

Re:After my last month with RH8 M$ has no worries

[Eloquence]

Some enlightenment:

1) nVidia's drivers cannot be bundled by Red Hat for licensing reasons. If you want them to be bundled and auto-installed, petition nVidia to release their drivers as free software.

2) New hardware isn't exactly an advantage when using Linux, because support for it is often provided by volunteers and needs time to get mature. If you want official Linux drivers, petition the manufacturer. This is not a problem of Linux, it's a problem of any OS that wants to compete with a monopoly OS. A Linux-preinstalled machine does obviously not have this problem, but MS has so far prevented dual boot Windows/Linux machine sales through OEM pressure.

3) Users who want to install the latest software from source or CVS should expect this to be a non-trivial procedure, regardless of the OS being Linux or Windows (the latter of which comes with QBASIC and VBScript as its only development tools, the better one, QBASIC, is no longer part of recent releases). If you want to install software that immediately runs, use your distribution's packaging and installation system. In the Red Hat case, this is called up2date and is commercial. You can also spend time instead of money and install something like apt4rpm to make package installation simpler. You can also use Ximian's Red Carpet for free (but it is primarily geared towards GNOME applications). Other distributions like Debian (which you can try out using the fantastic Knoppix) provide even more sophisticated mechanisms.

4) I have used OpenOffice Impress. It's somewhat unstable but imports PowerPoint presentations reasonably well and has most of PowerPoint's features (and some of its own). I have found the script-based MagicPoint more satisfying in getting quick and pretty results (example pres I did about Mono). If you get over the fact that it isn't yet another PowerPoint clone but actually a different way to do things, it's pretty cool.

KPresenter may eventually bcome the best graphical presentation tool, but is not there yet. You can run PowerPoint nicely under Linux using Crossover Office and, probably, with some tweaking, under the free WINE.

5) Homemade karaoke VCDs: Exotic end user stuff like that usually takes extra effort on Linux because too few people care about it to develop free, easy to use apps, and desktop Linux is not yet sufficiently wide-spread to be commercially targeted for such applications. Obviously, the best way to change this is to stop using the monopoly OS and to use Linux instead, or to fund development efforts.

6) 3D speed: I don't play FPS, so I can't comment much on that. Last time I tried 3D stuff under Linux, it worked as intended, so I didn't check the FPS. DirectX is obviously a quite sophisticated API and the Win32 drivers are highly optimized, though, so until Linux game companies start targeting Linux as a major platform, I wouldn't be surprised by about 10-20% speed differences.

In conclusion, your problems resulted from you doing stuff that basic users shouldn't do unless willing to spend the effort (trying to install software from source), not using one of the free or commercial software installation tools, and not checking hardware compatibility properly. Many of the problems are not problems of Linux as an OS but problems of a market dominated by a monopolist. Therefore, your attitude that you hope that Linux will "fix" these problems is somewhat naive, the way to fix them is to support Linux so there is no longer a monopolist who imposes market conditions under which much of the software you miss so dearly (drivers, Karaoke, games) can be developer.

Obviously, you can also continue to use Windows. It's sufficient for basic desktop stuff, and Microsoft has some very interesting and powerful features coming up, like "trusted computing". But while you continue to buy their software, you are part of the problems you criticize.

Re:After my last month with RH8 M$ has no worries

[t0qer]

Uhhm, That's sorta what I said... Here, 1 sentance summary of my complaint.

When I read a howto do something in linux, it should never be linked to a page that returns a 404.

Try searching google for the VCD howto and see what I mean.

RH8 still gets props for having a nice GUI, it's really polished and easy on the eyes. I could find almost no distinction between it and XP.

Re:After my last month with RH8 M$ has no worries

[Eloquence]

The Linux HOWTOs and man pages are maintained by volunteers, not by the distributors. There would be ways to keep them more up to date, such as use of wikis (collaboratively editable webpages), but this is just beginning to happen (see, for example, LinuxWiki).

As a Linux user, you can expect the explicitly listed features of your distribution to work. If you are sufficiently technical, you can hunt down the necessary information to make extra features work, but you should realize that you're now on your own, and working with information provided to you free of charge. Instead of respecting those who put effort into doing so (whereas it would be much easier for them to just keep the info for themselves, as you likely will once you make things work), you criticize them. At least send them a mail and tell them where the error is.

You should realize one thing: Red Hat 8 is not geared towards people who burn VCDs. It's geared towards corporations that want to replace their Unix/Windows servers and workstations. For them, it does a very good job. The corporations save licensing costs, and Red Hat earns money with support. Home users are, from the perspective of Red Hat (the company) just evangelists, small change or even parasites. Thus, your expectations towards Red Hat to be a good solution for a home desktop are misguided. If you're looking for that, try Xandros (which is, however, also geared primarily towards corporate use) or Lindows.

Only a year ago, every Slashdot story about Linux on the desktop would be about how Linux would never succeed as a desktop platform. Now people are complaining about small issues. Are you beginning to see a pattern emerge?

I'm an idiot

[pubjames]

To the extent that anyone draws a conclusion from this document like "we've got Microsoft on the run", that's just idiotic.

Why, exactly? If genuine (and I expect it probably is, since I can't see any benefit to Microsoft of leaking this), this document highlights what many of us already thought - Microsoft is having a tough time coming up with an effective response to Linux and OSS.

The strategies it suggests (making more noise about Shared Source, trying to win the TCO argument) aren't really hard hitting, but then, what else can MS do? People suggest that it will start using patents and IP law to get heavy with OSS projects, but I doubt it - it's too important for them to improve their image and stop being peceived as the bad guy, because that is why many people are considering OSS and Linux in the first place.

It suggests we're got Microsoft on the run to me, it basically says they recognise Linux/OSS as a strong competitor, and most of their weapons are blunt.

XML next time?

[IamTheRealMike]

Hey ESR, can you provide the next doc with XML and a couple of stylesheets so I can eliminate your comments? Sometimes they are good, but mostly they are just irritating cheerleading - we are quite capable of drawing our own conclusions thanks.

Re:XML next time?

[IamTheRealMike]

Actually, screw that. I just read the FAQ:

Would you please make un-annotated versions available?

No. As it is, my defense against a copyright-violation suit by Microsoft would have to make rather creative use of the exemptions in copyright case law relating to journalism, satire and commentary. I fear that making un-annotated copies available would place me at significant legal risk.

then

[Ender Ryan]

What happens if you submit a good kernel patch in Japanese?

Then we'll quickly have a nice place in the OSS community for translators! ;-)

Unlikely!

[Lysol]

First off, she was placed - no nevermind. No point in debating the fact that she was not qualified to sit on this case.

Anyway, even if she did care, nothing can be done about it now. It's over. The US has shown its' love for the almighty dollar once more. As asshcroft said - it was a victory for the American consumer.

All one can hope for is that m$ will fall by its' own hand. With substantial world unhappiness this can happen soon. I mean, really, how can poorer countries be expected to shell out >=$75 ever other year for stupid upgrades and fixes? Economically, their business is not sustainable.

Unfortunately, we're gonna have to wait for that to happen - which is the worst! Ugh, waiting...

Re:Unlikely!

[thoolihan]

Or Upgrade any other distribution to the same, but more recent... http://gentoo.org/doc/faq.html#doc_chap3 See the part about emerge --update world "Unprotected Breakfast, the sweetest taboo of them all" -HJS

Re:Unlikely!

[grytpype]

Try debian, it doesn't have that problem.

Re:Unlikely!

[jdavidb]

Hate to tell you, but it was actually Solomon, in the Bible. The book of Proverbs says something to that effect multiple times, in fact.

Lincoln has gotten credit for reusing or slightly rewording Biblical sayings before, including "A house divided cannot stand."

Re:Unlikely!

[ShavenYak]

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?

Re:Unlikely!

[jgerman]

Hmmm, interesting numbers. I have never paid for a linux distro. Try backing that figure up.

Re:Unlikely!

[Melantha_Bacchae]

denisbergeron wrote:

> Since W3.1, you can upgrade to the next/ more
> recent version without a problem. (except of
> course the problem caused by the bsod) !

Obviously, you didn't try to upgrade to Windows 95 when it first came out. Took me eleven months of reformats and reinstalls, corrupted registry, and a near useless (and getting worse) computer before I gave up. I reformatted, reinstalled Windows 3.1, swore eternal hatred towards the Microsoft I once loved, and started looking for alternatives. Why did this take eleven months? Because I loved the concept and GUI of Windows 95 and really wanted it to work. I had been looking forward to it coming out, and had even preordered it.

In the late 90's, I experimented with various Linux distributions, built my own Linux server, etc. I eventually settled on Suse. Installation was fairly easy even then (a breeze compared to Windows 95), and I handled the lack of distribution "upgrades" by upgrading my hard drive at the same time. I'd install the new version on the new hard drive, then just copy my files and stuff over. Upgrades were fun, gave me more room, and I'd spend an hour or more carefully selecting what packages I wanted. I still have fond feelings for Linux, and I currently own the Linux based Zaurus PDA.

In the fall of 2000, thanks to the coming of OS X and some prodding by Godzilla (courtesy of the extremely pro-Apple movie "Godzilla 2000"), I took a look at Apple's Macs for the first time since a chance encounter in a college book store back in 1985. This time I appreciated what I saw, and fell in love. I bought an iMac, and when OS X first released, I installed it without any headaches.

Exactly seven years after my Windows 95 nightmare began, Apple released OS X Jaguar. Again I brought an OS of great promise home to install it. This time, though, the results were very different: everything I'd hoped for for the past seven years came true.

On December 14, 1996, Mothra resurrected a charred Apple sapling ("Mosura" 1996).
On December 14, 2001, Mothra returned to see its fruit ("Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Ghidora: Daikaiju Soukougeki").
OS X Jaguar: truly the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.

Re:Unlikely!

[eno2001]

Actually... "upgrading" with Windows is anything but smooth. When I upgraded from Win 3.1 to Win95, my video didn't work (the display was monochrome red), the system was completely unstable. When I did a clean install on the same exact system, Win95 worked like a charm. In my early days as a RedHat user, I also tried an upgrade. NOT SMOOTH. It was just as bad as the Win 3.1 -> Win95 upgrade. However, after having gained a lot of experience with Linux and Windows over the past decade, I've found that you can pretty easily move to the next version of either OS as long as you know what data to save and restore. You won't lose any functionality in Linux and you won't lose most functionality in Windows.

However, the original parent poster is partially correct. It is wrong that any company should be able to extort money from anyone for something as trivial as an OS or a basic application. However, history proves that this, sadly, IS sustainable. Just look at the auto industry. They can extort large amounts of money from people around the world no matter what the economy is. But you wind up with certain consequences. Go into any impoverished region (city, state or nation) and you won't see many of the exotic or luxury cars zooming around on the road. You will see beaters, maybe some mid-level used cars, but that's it. If there does happen to be someone who has a really expensive ride, chances are that they didn't get it by totally legitimate means. (Meaning that all Apple users are crooks. Just kidding, I Love the Mac.) The one things that distinguishes computers from cars is open source-GNU/Linux, etc... It's the equivalent of being able to get car parts for your beater or mid-level used car that can improve it's performance, but not having to pay. So... while the Windows user's don't have a lot of options to upgrade their OS that are non-MS, ANY user of any flavor of Linux does. It just takes a little more effort, but it's effort well spent.

Bring on the bukkake comments...

Re:Unlikely!

[rseuhs]

So that 80$ allows me to put Windows on every machine on my network, right?

And it also includes Office, right?

Re:Unlikely!

[macdaddy357]

The good thing about quoting or paraphrasing the bible is that most versions of it are in the public domain. You aren't violating the DMCA or any other copyright law. It also makes you seem to be well read when you can quote obscure parts of it, such as Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Re:Unlikely!

[den_erpel]

I guess you opened padora's box with this statement (/me wonders if this is a troll :) )

I must assume you have no or little experience with gnu/linux deployment in small/larger environments.

I see where linux is used in two large organisations (each of about 1,000 ppl I guess) and none of these is actually _buying_ MDK every release.

While these two organisations tackle it quite differently (which is another discussion), both the centralised and more distributed approach do "periodical" upgrades of the clients and in an _automated_ way (RH and Debian if you are interested).

The discussions in the IT meetings about upgrading the W32 clients, ... required more preparation of the users and hardware/timing.

A new user would go out and buy let's say MDK or SuSE every release, just to have to box in the shelf at home, not companies or a bit more experienced users (and ppl get very quickly experienced when their wallet is involved).

Perhaps a bit OT, but I used to do some sysadmin next to my regular work and I can assure you, we had _much_ more problems with W32 upgrades as compared to the GNU upgrades...

But I guess this discussion will always be a yes-no discussion, perhaps with the only difference that I feel that the GNU users have some experience with W32, while W32 seem to take the FUD as reality... Pitty.

Re:Unlikely!

[flacco]

anti-religios zealotry is just as bad as religious zealotry.

Not really. Anti-religious zealotry is usually reactive, in response to The Right And Good Chosen People Of God attempting to coerce non-believers into behaving more in line with their religious ideology.

Re:Unlikely!

[jgerman]

Not much at all, the very first time about eight years ago, yeah it took a while. But that was because it was 40+ disks worth of Slackware and X. Since then it's a snap, pull down the iso's burn install, done. It's not a difficult procedure, no more difficult than Windows. Especially lately. My cdr has yet to be rcognized by XP (actually is sort of works lots of errors now), and linux picked it up PnP.

If you understand computers it's easy. If you don't I can imagine it's more difficult, but then so is Windows.

Re:Unlikely!

[jgerman]

No more than I spend installing, configuring, and maintaining windows. Less in fact. I never say, "how do you do x in *nix". But have said "how do you do x" in windows a good bit.

Additionally, if you want to restrict this to the business world, Linux saves us wads of cash. Developers are more efficient with it, the MIS department doesn't need to support it (of course if sales people were running it they'd need to), and it works.

The argument was never that ToC of Linux is 0. The original poster claimed that you have to shell out a couple of hundred dollars every few months versus much less when you use Windows. He was implicitly arguing that the Linux distros themselves cost more than Windows, which is patently untrue. Total cost of ownership wasn't even the subject of the original post, however Linux has Windows beat in that aspect as well.

Re:Unlikely!

[jgerman]

No it doesn't. The TCO for Linux is cheaper in my experience. It still remains to be proved that Winodwsw is cheaper in that respect, every argument I've seen takes it as a given and that's not proof.

Re:Unlikely!

[macdaddy357]

It is from the movie, Pulp Fiction.

In comes the laywers...

[miffo.swe]

I really do hope that MS sends there little minions upon Linux. That way it gets evidently clear that they will do anything possible to stifle any competition no matter how small. Linux isnt a threat to Microsoft at the moment at all. Its just a player in the same industry and i dont think that Microsoft is afraid of linux. Im more suspicious that the real fear is if linux succeds in open up he internet and gets some solid standards into place. If i wore to make an OS today i sure would make it POSIX compliant. That way i have thousands of applications at hand from day one.

I really thinks thats what MS is really afraid of. Not linux but lets face it, there are plenty of room for innovation in the OS arena and especially in the GUI field that has almost grinded to a halt. All we have are new colors and fancy addons but the basic principle is ancient in computer time.

A serious new OS needs applications (the barrier to entry) and with POSIX you have instant applications with little work. You dont have to muster developers to start coding if applications from Linux runs on your OS.

Microsoft is afraid for the next step, when someone whips out something new and they are left behind. They have proven that they are totally incapable of inventing anything. The day that someone runs away from them they are doomed because of their complete lack of ingenuity.

Re:In comes the laywers...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

If [I were] to make an OS today i sure would make it POSIX compliant.
Like NT? Ironically enough, for a long time NT was the only POSIX certified OS. The major UNIX vendors never bothers, though it was fairly absurd they had to certify themselves as UNIX.

POSIX certification guarantees very little, it is still difficult to get a cross platform app. What libraries do you have, which way do you have your system includes laid out, do you have BSD or SVR4 style init scripts (or neither, RedHat had their own variation for a while a "clean up" that broke a lot of things). You still need to target individual platforms, just yu won't have to change a lot in the targetting.

Another leaked document:

[jaymzter]

BillG: memo to self, "Linux sux!"

biz dev definition

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Eric Raymond, clearly impressed with his own wit, writes, "BDM Business Development Manager: fancy term for IT salespeople and IT sales managers."
Biz dev and sales are quite different. Think strategy (biz dev) vs tactics (sales). Business development, well, develops new business. New markets, possibly new products, new partnerships. Sales executes, possibly getting into new markets but not on the level of biz dev.

Re:biz dev definition

[BeeShoo]

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

Re:biz dev definition

[sstory]

biz dev and sales? Is this like div grad and curl? I hope not.

Let's see here...

[Java Pimp]

Most documents that contain "sensitive" information don't contain the phrase "forward to..." anywhere within the document.

This sounds as fishy as the virus alerts that request they be "forwarded to everyone in your address book."

Foreign Markets and Moving Targets

[AAAWalrus]

Microsoft, like any other mega-corp, continues to seek ways to increase revenue with increased customer base. The US market hasn't completely dried up (in terms of *new* users), but it isn't the hotbed of growth it was during the early 90's. Newer, more capable, and more stable products, compounded with steady high prices means that people don't feel they have to do a software upgrade of their computer every year or two.

The growth is in foreign markets, primarily in Europe and Southeast Asia. So Microsoft has two goals - continue to maintain marketshare in the US, and increase marketshare in Europe. The problem Microsoft runs into is that many countries are a virtually clean slate, untainted by Best Buys and Wal Marts selling almost entirely Windows software. With Open Source permeating so much of the internet as a "free alternative to Microsoft", Microsoft has to discredit Open Source and convince people that it's worth their Euros and Yen to buy Microsoft stuff. None of this is new, and there is little the Open Source community can do to stop Microsoft from doing whatever it will do anyway, except continue to develop solid, usable technology.

Microsoft is fighting a different kind of battle - the opponent isn't one they can buy out, sue, or place a heavy financial lean on. This is both good and bad for the open source movement. Open source advocates can't be directly targeted by Microsoft, and it provides Microsoft with a moving target. But open source also has no unified body to directly organize a challenge against Microsoft - it all has to be done from the developers up.

None of the stuff in that report should come as a surprise. The problem is that there is no organized entity to act on it. There is no one person who can stand up and mandate that all of Open Source must execute one course of action.

As long as people can continue to develop good technology, use it in practice, scour the web as advocates, and spread the word that people don't *have* to use Microsoft, eventually the undecided parties will get informed about the choice that Microsoft doesn't want them to have.

-AAAWalrus

the survey is real!

[gol64738]

French respondents exhibited a strong anti-Microsoft sentiment as sixty-one percent (61%) stated that 'an alternative to Microsoft' was the most compelling reason to support OSS.

french people? exhibiting a strong anti-anything-not-french sentiment?

oh, you can bet this survey is real!

TCO battle between Linux and Windows

[Mr_Silver]

In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument

(snip)

{So they're going to try to beat us up on total cost of ownership! Well, it was all pretty sane up to that point; it's nice to know our opponents are still smoking crack about some key issues.

Whilst Windows will never be cheaper than Linux it could be argued that it can have a lower TCO if you make the assumption that a persons time is worth something.

In other words, if I have to set something up and it takes 4 mouse-clicks under Windows and 2 hours under Linux (extreme I know, but bear with me), then they could claim (rightly so) that their OS has saved my organisation money by making me more productive. Its the whole "Windows is easier!" mantra.

Of course, OSS will catch up, but they want it to always play catch up and then this is another point MS can use in their favour.

I could be totally wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they have a perfectly sensible reason for stating that they could beat TCO. Considering ESR wasn't actually in that review, he has no idea what was discussed or the finer points around it and therefore would be a tad premature to dismiss it as them "smoking crack".

It's not an entirely professional suggestion to make either. Makes him sound like a spotty faced 15 year old.

Why so OS centric?

[bstadil]

I don't really understand why this document is so OS centric? The biggest TCO achilles heel for MS must be their Office Suite franchise, but maybe they don't want to "publicly" say so.

Office account for 60%+ of MS' profit and they are so far up the diminishing return curve that this is where the attack should be. There is a Office 11 beta review today that pretty much says that the user benefits of upgrading is small and more geared at developers and requires total MS on the backend. This is excellent as they are playing right into Open Source's strength: The backend. Foil this and Office 11 will have little to offer over OpenOffice et al.

Snared Source

[Airline_Sickness_Bag]

One important thing about the memo is that we need to do a better job explaining the difference between shared source, and open source, and how it really is "snared source" in terms of the potential legal entanglements.

-asb

Re:cost

[tomhudson]

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

What's better than SS and OSS?

[3seas]

A system that is a lot easier for the users to "do it themselves" which pretty much causes the SS and OSS issue to be a moot issue.

Now the Common Language Infrastructure of the ECMA-335 document describes a sum of programming concepts and datatypes integrated in an non-conflicting manner.

Such a thing is very helpful if one is planning on not only developing an auto-coding development environment but something that you would also want shared as far as possible..... before you swoop down and corner the auto-coding market with patented tools.

pipe dream

[goombah99]

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.

I'm sure you would not even raise an eyebrow at the term "pipe dream". Yet of course, that is the very meaning and origin of the term. Smoking opium or crack leads to an irrational overly rosy pipe dream. "smoking crack" is an attmept to update the lexicon in a mildly shocking manner. A bit risque but not rabid.

Imminent Death of Microsoft, Try #117

[ch-chuck]

Now go read this.

My conclusion:

[techstar25]

Now we've got Microsoft on the run!

TCO

[Cheese Cracker]

The important thing for the Linux community is to prove to the IT managers that Linux has lower TCO
than Windows. After all, having 60, 70, 80 or 90% of the developers favoring Linux doesn't mean a
thing if the management doesn't believe it will pay off.

TCO isn't "in the bag" yet

[Sloppy]

The alleged-MS document says:

In the short term, then, Microsoft should .. continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument..

And ESR says:

So they're going to try to beat us up on total cost of ownership! Well, it was all pretty sane up to that point; it's nice to know our opponents are still smoking crack about some key issues.

I think TCO is still a major unresolved issue in the Microsoft-vs-OSS-vs-EveryoneElse debate. Computers, at least in business, are still very expensive to run and require experts. The cost of these people absolutely dwarfs the retail price of MS Windows. Microsoft's products are still pretty hard to use and take a lot of expertise, but everyone else's (including the popular Linux distributions) are still pretty bad too, except maybe Apple's.

If Microsoft makes a serious effort to make Windows easy to use, they could theoretically win the TCO fight, or at least beat the penguins. As far as I can tell (at least from what I've seen of XP) they haven't really tried yet. But don't get complacent.

If you want to ensure beating Microsoft on TCO, then quit being smug about the Microsoft's pricetag and EULA. Instead, look at your OSS projects from this point of view: Will deploying this software help a business to justify firing some of their IT staff? It's cool that someone can troubleshoot a user's machine by ssh-ing into it instead of having to go to their office, but the fact that they have to be around to do it at all, means their employer didn't really save money.

Re:TCO isn't "in the bag" yet

[kevin lyda]

ok, if windows and other ms apps are so cheap for companies to buy compared to the rest of the money they spend on computers, why does ms have $30 billion in the bank? did the tooth fairy make a mistake one night?

what are you doing?

[r5t8i6y3]

as a consultant i am ACTIVELY moving my customers (small businesses and home users) over to GNU/Linux.

how do i do it?

i give every customer a free 1/2 hour of consulting to bring them up to speed on the state of the computer industry. all of my customers love getting the free 1/2 hour. after the talk they feel empowered to make informed decisions about the computing technology upon which they rely.

what do i tell them?

just the same stuff most folks on slashdot already know. some details about Microsoft's focus on customer lock-in. details about long-term computing reliability via the GPL (since most folks have experienced a forced Microsoft upgrade cycle, this is music to their ears). i note that large reputable corporations are switching to GNU/Linux (IBM's seal of approval carries a lot of weight). also, i use simple analogies like Microsoft products being automobiles with the hoods welded shut.

after that 1/2 hour talk my customers usually want to make the switch immediately.

Assuming this is real...

[Iamthefallen]

I see 2 things that ESR missed or didn't address and emphasize enough:

IP rights, expect a heavy assault from MS and other organisations interested in IP rights against OSS, if you have code in your app that might infringe on someone elses copyright, or anything else that might be an IP issue, get it outta there now. They're moving from FUD to lawsuits, be prepared.

The self delusion, MS, instead of addressing the issues head on, write around them to make MS come out in a better light. Example: That only a few percent are very positive towards Shared Source should be written in bold red letters, MS should address that, not try to hide it since 2% approval simply means Shared Source will fail. Trying to make yourself come of well in an internal memo is insane and delusional, who's there to pat you on the back? There's no point in using marketing speak when addressing yourself.

That is something that makes me doubt the validity of the document ...

Finally, a suggestion: Don't complain about MicroSoft's flaws, praise Open Source accomplishments and features instead.

Re:Assuming this is real...

[Arandir]

if you have code in your app that might infringe on someone elses copyright, or anything else that might be an IP issue, get it outta there now.

But that would be all the code! The USPTO has demonstrated time and again that they will issue a patent for anything. Companies have demonstrated time and again that they will stretch the meaning of their patents to cover anything that they don't want you to do.

The only guarantee against not being sued (regardless of your field) is to never crawl out of your cave, and even that is risky. I would rather code than hide.

here's some help

[gol64738]

put a "</i>" between the paragraphs...

Re:A Question

[evilpenguin]

Why don't you offer a suggestion on a better design? I assure you if you really have a better way, us programmers can implement it. Maybe this is the dominant model because it is still the best one going. And, for what it is worth, the model predates MS Windows by several years.

Eternal Implicit Disclaimer

[back_pages]

It was submitted by Michael.

Uh, no.

[dmaxwell]

Ed Muth admitted that "No. These documents do not represent an official Microsoft position or road map. They are technical analyses written by a staff engineer that represent the thoughts of one individual at one point in time. They were intended to encourage an informed internal discussion of issues by marketing and engineering middle managers." Of course they tried to make it sound as though it didn't really mean anything.

They have since pulled the press release from their site but Microsoft did admit it was authentic document. I've read it myself from the horse's mouth on Microsoft's site.

Here is the Wayback Machine's archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990117031504/http:/ /w ww.microsoft.com/ntserver/highlights/editorletter. asp

Is this proof enough?

Re:Uh, no.

[geoswan]

Here is the Wayback Machine's archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990117031504/http://w ww.microsoft.com/ntserver/highlights/editorletter. asp

Is this proof enough?

Yup. Proof enough for me.

Except the link in dmaxwell's article has typos. This version works.

Dont get it wrong, they ARE on the run..

[nurb432]

But TOWARDS us, swords drawn.. not running away in fear as we would hope..

Be afraid, very afraid of a coporation that has no restraints on its actions.

Re:Dont get it wrong, they ARE on the run..

[Chris Johnson]

You're only confused because you're standing around in a group of regular people and customers. They're running at their own customers with swords drawn. Guess the money isn't coming fast enough! This could eventually produce a PR problem for 'em independent of anything Linux does :)

Obvious answer!

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

We have to fight Microsoft or Linux and all other free software will die. Microsoft has a long history of destroying any competitor and we are their alleged number one competitor.

We need to have a large user base to get
a) Broad public support to thwart any legal attempts by MS to make free software illegal.
b) To get support for common hardware and software.
c) To keep a steady supply of new developers and contributors.

If the way to achieve a large user base is minimizing the costs of switching from MS to free software, then we have to do it. Doing this will not take away the old and tried unix tool chain.

Unfortunate, but OSS has to have advocates.

[RyanFenton]

It would be great if open source operating systems could exist, Windows (and possibly others later) could exist, and each of them attracting those who find the respective operating system most helpful to them.

But that's not entirely possible. Because of the great freedom afforded by the internet for thousands of programmers to create anything, and distribute them, combined with the free architechture of open source operating systems - the applications on these formerly hobbyist-only OS' have been infringing on the markets most prized by propietary software vendors. It can't be helped - people are interested in such applications, so they develop them to use in their favorite open source environment.

In response, companies like Microsoft have been working on legal, finantial, and legislative grounds to hinder or halt many forms software and idea development. After all, they can't just explain to their stockholders that they just can't convince these potential customers to pay for their proprietary software, and that there's nothing special to that they can do to stop that.

So, now open source software needs advocates. Advocates in the legal world, in the finantial world, and in the legislative world if any expectation of free development is to be expected.

These voices don't have to work the same way proprietary software advocates do - they just have to get others to understand why they need the freedom to believe the way they do... because the simple freedom to develop is almost all that is needed for open source software to exist. This is most unlike proprietary software, that needs a certain dollar value, and constant increase over time on top of that for stockholders.

It's unfortunate that advocates are needed, but they are - stories like this show the mindset that forces this need.

Ryan Fenton

No it can't

[beleg777]

A lie repeated 1000 times can become mistaken for the truth. It doesn't cease to be a lie just because it's believed.

Re:No it can't

[DunbarTheInept]

That depends on whether it's a lie about human activity. Those sorts of lies can alter human activity if they spread far enough and thereby stop being lies. For example, "Cadidate Foo has no chance of winning this election" might start as a lie, but can make itself become true if enough people believe it that said belief makes them abandon that candidate to choose another.

Now, lies about the world OUTSIDE human behaviour cannot become true by repetition, that is true.

Why negative attacks DO work for OSS

[freeBill]

I dislike negative attacks as much as the next guy and I hope we see less of them and more positive Linux-building comments, but I do believe there is a case to be made that they work better for Open Source advocates.

Almost anyone who has ever used MS products has had at least one nightmarish experience with their products. Many newbies assume these experiences are their fault (especially when they were told such by a lying error message deliberately written to blame it on them). Many people just blame computers when this happens to them. Others carry it as a secret guilt.

When such a person hears an anti-MS rant, it can be a revelation giving them the "right" to question their own assumptions about Microsoft. (Remember: They have been told this is a great company which makes good products.)

If you include a positive Linux message at the end of your rant, you may even make an OSS sale.

Re:Why negative attacks DO work for OSS

[More Trouble]

Almost anyone who has ever used MS products has had at least one nightmarish experience with their products.

So, who's making Switch Ads from MS to Linux? Instead of Apple's wimpy "MS is hard" pitch, you could really go for the jugular: like "I just got tired of the viruses, everyone in my address book emailing me asking me why I sent the wierd message."

:w

ESR Interview

[locarecords.com]

Hi, we are running an interview series with key figures in the Open Source movement and have got up the first notable, none other than Eric S. Raymond himself.

As we are politically inclined readers might think we're asking him the wrong questions, perhaps, but we are interested in what connections he sees in Open Source and the world at large (if any) ... and anyway we love politics....

Feel free to point browser at DIGITALAGORA.COM

Wrong apps to be focusing on.

[debest]

Yes, the applications are the real issue. Just not the ones you mentioned. Linux will not be able to eclipse Windows for the clueless, "not supported by an IT department" user for a long time, maybe never.

More important than the apps you mentioned (personal entertainment & productivity) are the *enterprise* applications (boring, but necessary stuff like payroll, inventory, project & resource management, specialized databases, and the like).

These are the kind of applications that are virtually impossible to develop robustly in an open source environment simply because no one is interested in writing this stuff for fun. GUIs are fun. Media players too. Even office suites (if only because the "target" is the evil Microsoft). But enterprise infrastructure applications? How many OSS geeks are just itching to build a replacement for the functionality of PeopleSoft? Or Primavera Project Planner?

This stuff will *never* come for free. The companies who write these applications today do so exclusively for Windows, and they will not port them to Linux unless they see a reason for doing so (ie. customers running Linux on their corporate desktops). Since the apps are not on Linux today, corporations cannot migrate their desktops. The chicken-or-the-egg scenario in practice. (It is for this reason that I support the WINE project (including CodeWeavers). It is an interim step to getting enough seats running a Linux desktop, to convince the app developers to support the platform natively.)

Support in an enterprise environment will make Linux a more "legitimate" OS, and other vendors will follow. I can easily see Adobe getting into porting their graphics apps to Linux if they see Linux on more corporate seats. A native version of Lotus Notes would work nicely as well.

When everyday users start seeing Linux as a usable environment at work, they may be more predisposed to try it at home, as well. But I still firmly believe that unless they have a friendly geek for a neighbour, this will be the "last frontier" for Linux. I won't complain if applications from established vendors start arriving for such home users, but I wouldn't count on it happening soon. Windows is just better suited for the non-techie home user.

Re:Something for you all.

[Maul]

Well, it seems to make sense. I don't find this policy very surprising.

Obviously Microsoft doesn't want to :

(A) Get caught with existing GPL code in their products. This would be like them admitting GPL software is superior to what they can produce and would also get them in possible trouble for violating the GPL.

(B) Accidentally have any piece of their software fall under the GPL. Imagine something accidentally falling under the GPL that helps Linux developers more easily integrate features that MS wants to be "Windows only" into Linux apps (such as the ability to play Microsoft DRM enabled media files, for example).

(C) Have their employees contribute to open source projects on the side. If an employee puts one of their ideas into an OSS project, it will become hard for MS to later monopolize on that idea.

Contradiction

[DunbarTheInept]

These two paragraphs of yours contradict each other:

• Now, the majority of you will go you "you could've fixed this and that by editing this and changing that and rewriting these 30 lines of code yatta yatta yatta" but who gives a fuck.

• Reply to this, don't mod it down because you don't agree. If you really think you're right, you'll be able to prove it.

No, we won't be able to prove it - not to you at any rate. In the first paragraph quoted above, you declared that you won't listen to reason, although you didn't really phrase it that way.

defend against Free why its gone

[SubtleNuance]

but one strong possibility is that the term has simply fallen out of use both at Microsoft and in their survey population

or, MS didnt want to include the Free Software meme in its Survey (thereby replicating it).

They would like to see Free Software only be Open Source - because they have (some) answers to Open Source.. but none for Free Software.

Nah

[inerte]

From the article:

Overall, the greatest challenges we face are with the International audience -- especially the French, Germans, and Japanese.

I would say they will face a pretty strong challenge here, in Brazil. Recently we have elected a new president, Lula, and he was the only candidate to specifically say the words "Software Livre" (Free Software) while on campaing.

Besides, there are many other points:

1) Our strongest organization that promotes free software, Cipsga, was based at a state (Rio Grande do Sul), that had a governor from the same party as Lula (PT);

2) São Paulo (Brazil biggest city) uses Linux a lot on governamental projects. Over 250 "Infocentros" (info-center) are being built or are already done and they run Linux exclusively. São Paulo's mayor (Marta Suplicy) is from the same party as Lula;

3) Connectiva is from Brazil, it's a profitable Linux company that owns a lot of the South American market share. Also, a Conectiva employee, Marcelo Tosatti, is the maintainer of the version 2.4 of the Linux kernel (but we all knew this, right ;-));

4) Lately, there has been going a lot of speculation about who will be part of the governament. The top contender for the most important Tech and Science position of the governament, the minister (sp?), is a strong advocate of free software;

Here's an evidence that will put a lot more reason into what I said: One week before winning the elections, favorite in every survey, Lula received an invitation from Bill Gates to go to the USA and have a meeting with him. True! This means uncle Bill already understand the "threat" that Lula represents to his company, and its business model.

On a side note: I have a website called Inércia Sensorial with news about technology here in Brazil, and looking at my referers log, I see a lot of Google searchs that have been increasing lately, associating Lula and the free software dream and fight. Check it out what some people have searched:

Lilus Lula

Mr. Gates and Mr. da Silva (actually, that's a title from an article which I linked at my website)

So, look at Brazil for the next couple years. I am sure a lot of pro-active actions will be taken by our governament.

Re:cost

[limber]

when you shell out $100... you're getting 3 to 4 gigs of applications...

This (file size of distro) is not a good measure of the value provided. (i.e. maybe this distro is just really bloated.)

The focus should be on functionality, ease of use, TCO, quality of documentation, etc.

Agreed.

[Dog and Pony]

I agree with the above, more or less. I also use win2k, especially at work - because it makes me more productive. Yes, you heard right. What I do not do is use any MS Office stuff, or matter of factly anything that costs lots of money. There are lots of free programs and when that fails, great and cheap shareware that can do anything I need. Note: That *I* need.

I do deploy server stuff on Linux, and I find Red Hat comfortable to use as a work station too.

I had no such trouble with RH, I can get the resolution I want, and it did find my Microsoft USB optical mouse which I was very impressed with.

I still feel that win2k is the better OS, since it is extremely stable, fast and easy to use. Unless you want to actually do something complicated a bit deeper - then it is just as hard to find as in Linux. :)

No real crashes for years, and good uptime. With good uptime, I mean for weeks - that is really good enough for work stations that also do lots of experimental installs, but not for servers. :)

To me, Linux is great as a Server (would never use MS for that), but it is nowhere close as a Work Station. That doesn't mean it is a bad work station. I think it is a good one - just not nearly *as* good.

Of course, now I will also be called a troll. Sigh. Maybe better not tell people how I feel about Macs. ;-)

Another great Bible quote

[Mr. Firewall]

Here's what The Bible says about people who try Linux and then go back to Window$:

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

-- Proverbs 26:11

Not really different, just flexible.

[Inoshiro]

" or use something totally far out like this. You have a truckload of flexibility as far as UIs are concerned."

Uhm.. that just looks like any classical window manager which used the background image as the "skin" for its menus, titlebars, and vtbackgrounds (with a small colour change to make it somewhat less unreadable). All the windows I see in it use the exact same icons ([], X, -) that Micrsoft Windows uses, the same toolbar widgets, the same menus, etc. It's pretty (in an "I can't read the damned window titles or do work" kind of way), but otherwise it's exactly the same as IceWM, Wmaker, or Microsoft Windows.

I was really hoping you'd point to a truly different way (like the non-overlapping, always tiled WMs, or the 3D wms) of interacting with the computer. Those are most interesting to me (as a UI designer).

RedHat != GNU/Linux Re: After my last month...

[mrjinks]

I can't comment specifically on sound and video editing, but I've never had any of the dependency problems you mention since switching to Debian at work and Gentoo at home.

I can already hear people saying, "But those aren't particularly user-friendly distributions either," and there is some validity to that; you have to know a bit to set them up. But my point is that we have options, and once they're set up and running a Gentoo or Debian system can be quite friendly to the casual user.

I've flushed an incredible amount of time down the toilet over the past few days playing Tribes II on my Gentoo box (works just spiffy, thanks), and plan to get Unreal set up with my next round of mad money (demo worked flawlessly). I was a Red Hat cheerleader for years, they're still good for a lot, but it's the great boon and curse of any set of flexible, powerful tools that when one approach doesn't work, there are infinitely many more left over to try.

Sorry your experience didn't go so well, yes that still happens far too often, yes Windows is still easier on the initial upswing, but no, this particular at-least-as-lazy-as-the-next-guy user will not be going back to Windows any time soon, because my current setup works a lot better than any Windows box I've used ever has. YMMV.

Oh my god, NO!

[flacco]

Overall, the greatest challenges we face are with the International audience -- especially the French, Germans, and Japanese.

If the Europeans end up pulling our asses out of the way of the Microsoft juggernaut, we'll no longer be able to toss out "yeah, well we saved your ass in WWII!" at the end of every argument!

This is too easy...

[Archie Steel]

I have news for you. Microsoft doesn't give a crap about Linux or OS software and whatever insignificant market share they have.

Ballmer: Linux Is Top Threat To Windows

Microsoft acknowledges Linux threat

Ballmer: Microsoft sees the Linux challenge

You mention that "lots of big companies" are starting to deply Linux to the business desktop. Name a few.

Wall Street Embraces Linux

Linux for the Rest of Us

DreamWorks switches to HP, Linux

Secure Linux desktop begins shipping to UK police force

This memo is a position paper from one MS faction

[Thagg]

Unlike the original Vallipolli document, which seemed to address the impact of Linux on MS globally, this document seems clearly to be the work of a narrow faction, trying to convince others at Microsoft to agree with their position. Just as we criticize Mindcraft when they put out an benchmark funded by Microsoft and rigged so that Microsoft wins, this is a summary (and it's only the summary) of a survey crafted to make a particular statement within Microsoft. The survey is unfair and biased, so it's really not that useful either inside MS or to the rest of the world. The survey seems to have been created by a particular group of international market analysts within MS trying to promote their Shared Source initiative as a way of exerting hegemony. A few seconds thought would make it clear that Shared Source is a pretty darn small part of Microsoft's effort -- it seemed almost moribund to me -- and this piece seems like a desparate ploy of the people running Shared Source for continued support.

Nevertheless, it is a fun read. I'd love to see the detailed results, and not just the summaries. I'd love to see the actual questions were asked, too.

thad

Re:You fools!

[rseuhs]

Wrong, very wrong.

You realize what FUD means?

Microsoft does not want us to be confident, they want us to be afraid (Fear)

Microsoft does not want us to be certain, they want us to be uncertain. (Uncertainity)

And they want us to have doubts of everything. (Doubt)

And sadly, on Slashdot, they have succeeded.

Every Linux-story no matter how great news, is bad-mouthed and doubted. (Just read the recent Linux-adoption threads. Full of "but if it can't perform" - Fear, "we have to take care of what Microsoft plans to do" - Uncertainty, "the battle is not won" - Doubt)

Linux is technically ready for all mainstream computing tasks (including the desktop) but it is a marketing desaster because her own people (!) spread FUD all over the place to slow it down.

Vichy

[vsprintf]

French respondents exhibited a strong anti-Microsoft sentiment as sixty-one percent (61%) stated that 'an alternative to Microsoft' was the most compelling reason to support OSS. This sentiment was echoed to a lesser extent among the Germans (37%) and Swedes (35%).

If the French are our best ally in this, we may as well call for the body bags and write letters to our loved ones. That's just the normal anti-american sentiment, not a rally for OSS.

Re:Odd.

[glenstar]

Alas, it's true. The country that is full of BSD hackers, Ruby developers, etc... is also very reliant on Microsoft. I think there is a primary reason for that, and one that will probably get me flamed, modded down, or maybe both. Japanese Windows works flawlessly (well, as flawlessly as Windows can work).

As for the IE issue, that bring back horrid memories of a project I worked on in Japan a few years ago for Tsutaya. We had to rewrite entire portions of the application because it didn't work for IE 3.0. As we all know, *nothing* works with IE3, at least not things that work for any other browser, including other versions of IE.

Anyway, this "must work for IE3" thing came up while we were doing the install in Osaka... suffice it to say that we hurriedly wrote a wealth of kludges to make the thing work across "all" browsers. I will never attempt to write a web app that works in all browsers again. ;-)

Hang on a second

[Rogerborg]

What's the mechanism that enforces all open source licenses? It's copyright. It's the principle - and the legal fact - that when you produce something, you have the time limited right to control how it is copied. Note that you get this right regardless of whether you register it at the Library of Congress or even if you slap a (C) Bob Jones at the end of it. That just makes it easier to enforce your rights not to have it copied without your permission.

Now, what have opensource.org just done here? They've taken content produced and therefore copyrighted by Microsoft (regardless of whether there was a (C) at the end of it), claimed it as their own property (by putting their (C) copyright on the end!) and distributed it.

Pop quiz. If Microsoft took a bunch of your GPL'd code, removed the (C) Bob Jones, replaced it with (C) Bill Gates, and started distributing it, how would you feel?

So why do we apply a different standard to Microsoft? If open source advocates don't respect copyright, why should we expect them to?

Yes (n/t)

[Inoshiro]

.. ..... .........
yes. ....
(Damned slashdot filters)

Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition? decimal .

[darien]

Actually, Oct 9 = Dec 11. Hey, that reminds me of a joke...