Ballmer on Windows Server 2003, Linux

no_demons writes "Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, has given an interview to CNet about Windows Server 2003 and Linux. He claims that 'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'. Discuss." Also in the news: two critical security vulnerabilities (MS03-014, MS03-015), and this piece about Windows 2003 mentioning that Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

Comments

No wonder

[unterderbrucke]

The customers can't tell the difference between the multiple applications being worked on by Linux developers. They can tell that Windows 2003 has all they need, with an easy point and click interface, without semi-redundant applications. The Comp-Sci department at my college desperately wanted to run our server off Linux, but after we installed it there was just too many choices.23 web servers: OK, I can handle that. Apache. 4 media servers, none of which support Quicktime, 3 of which support low-res Real only: unusable. Very little XML support, which is important because our document retrival system is based upon it. Very buggy when uploading to Windows clients, which is very important because all of our computers run Windows, since Linux is so easy to screw up and there's no applications for imaging or like Norton's GoBack.

What open source needs to do:
1. stop focusing on programming the new hot stuff, focus on the stuff you missed in between text-editing and a 3D GUI.
2. look up the keywords of a SourceForge project you want to start on SourceForge before you start it. If there's another similar project, just missing features from your idea, work on that instead.
3. make things easy to use. have your uncle come over and try to work your program. observe what gives him trouble, fix it.

One last final point: Open source was doomed from the beginning. Yes, it's a blanket statement that sounds ridiculous. Keep reading. Open source is based on the very principles of communism: everyone works on it, everyone owns it. The very thing that led to the collapse of Communism leads to the inability of open source to become popular: workers then tend to migrate quickly, and not work hard, since they can't gain anything from working on one thing hard. So, projects die as they become less "hot" to work on. People ignore the basic fundamentals required (a decent media server), and instead work on a 3D GUI for X. God knows how you'll fix this problem. Call me if you do, that way I can start my own perfect county based on Communism.

Re:No wonder

[Blaine Hilton]

I hate to say it, but you have a point with communism, there is no incentive. However I believe that the core group of open source developers have incentive, and that beating Microsoft. It's like a small idealistic group standing up against a huge goliath of a company.

What I think, is the open source community needs to work more on marketing, documentation, and support. I believe that's the area that is lacking the most. Probably one of the best ways to education people on linux and open source is to get it in the schools. Kids usually tech their parents how to use computers.

Go calculate something

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you deny that OSS operates on the same principals as Communism?

Re:No wonder

[b0r1s]

Oh come on. The GPL is about as close to communism as you can get in the software world.

"I've written this software. It's free to use, it's free to modify, but you have to give back any changes to the community".

If it was really about freedom, you'd be writing code under the BSD license (free to use, free to modify, do whatever the hell you want, just don't blame the original authors if it doesn't work).

Re:No wonder

[arose]

"Open Source" may have bad documentation, I sugest you look at the GNU project.

Re:No wonder

[Guipo]

so incentive as in being pure hate? So what happens if microsoft disappears?

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't put it into GPL code unless you want to go to prison. Especially if the old BSD licence was used by accident or on purpose (as is possible).

Re:No wonder

[SS Sugar Bear]

If that were true all programmers would be forced at gunpoint to "donate" their code to some central authority where it would be redistributed to their legion of yesmen.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

ARE YOU, or HAVE YOU EVER BEEN a MEMBER of the OSS COMMUNITY?

Re:No wonder

[b0r1s]

First: You don't consider Linus' control over the central repository to be the 'fascist period'? You could argue that this 'period' has never ended.

Second: the BSD license is not 'freeware'. It's a statement that the software was written to be used by the community, with a single person receiving credit for the implementation. Microsoft does not steal this code: the people who wrote it, and licensed it, know that it's possible, and probably LIKE IT THAT WAY. The developers usually know their code is being used, and should be honored. Microsoft using pieces of the BSD tcp stack? Good for them, good for the people who wrote it initially, it just verifies that it's one of the best damn TCP stacks ever written.

Finally: I'll remind you that the BSD programmer always has access to his or her own code. Microsoft improving a TCP stack doesn't remove the existing stack from the face of the earth, and it doesn't limit use of the original stack. Once Microsoft improves upon it, that's not your code. Your code is still on your disk, where it was all along.

Re:No wonder

[Elwood P Dowd]

I think you might be surprised to find that most OSS and FS developers do their work because they want to create software that fits needs. "Beating Microsoft" may or may not be a side effect.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize, of course, that Linus controls everything w/respect to the kernel...this is to re-educate the newbie class and ensure there will be no corruption. :)

"Forget this VM stuff! I want my uptime to not roll-over!"

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Incentives for Open Source:
- altruism
- I want it to work, don't care about money
- experience will net a higher pay
- If I share with others, they will share with me
- beat evil corporate 1ooz0rz
- because it's cool.

Counter-incentives:
- selfishness
- These fools will share with me anyway
- I can charge for it and get a little copper in my pockets
- non-professional experiences is worthless
- communism is devil-spawn. mommy, save me!
- Microsoft owns my spine, Disnep owns my balls

Re:No wonder

[blakestah]

I hate to say it, but you have a point with communism, there is no incentive. However I believe that the core group of open source developers have incentive, and that beating Microsoft. It's like a small idealistic group standing up against a huge goliath of a company.

Necessity is the father of invention, not intellectual property,

People work on open source because it helps solve problems. Service companies work on open source because it helps their customers solve problems. That is its value - not intellectual property, but ability to help solve problems.

Re:No wonder

[geekoid]

" Kids usually tech their parents how to use computers."

it is my experience that that is becoming less and less the case. Kids will be up on the flashy new thing, but comuters, in and of themselves, aren't really the new flashy thing anymore.

Schools run into problems when the parent get upset that its different then there OS, which they have becasue thats what is at work. and they can get copies of software so they canb 'work from home'.

Communism works, if everyone involved believes in what they are doing. it doesn't work as a government because people have to do things they don't enjoy and/or believe in. thus there motivation is lacking.

Re:No wonder

[Dastardly]

Oh come on. The GPL is about as close to communism as you can get in the software world.

"I've written this software. It's free to use, it's free to modify, but you have to give back any changes to the community".

I want to requalify that slightly because the community isn't necessarily why some one licenses their code with the GPL (except RMS, maybe).

"I've written this software. It's free to use, it's free to modify, but if you are going to distribute it make sure I can get your changes too."

This is how some one writing GPL software gets economic benefit from the software by receiving the benefit of programming by those who use his programming.

Note, if you modify GPL software and never distribute it, your changes never have to be revealed. Although there is benefit to revealing those changes in order that you don't have to keep adding them in when some one else makes a change that you want.

Commnity tends to develop from this as a means of preventing anarchy and excessive forking.

Dastardly

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

Not good enough.

The success of a product at large depends on every developer having a common goal; the success of the product at large. It's not going to work to say "I need a text editor that does color coding of my HTML" and ignore basic needs like printing, display, sound and document model subsystems that the users truly need.

It's a paradigm shift; this started as a fun little USENET project, and now all the world is looking at it as a competitor to the biggest operating system product on the market.

And they're beginning to laugh at us.

Re:No wonder

[Elwood P Dowd]

Not good enough.

For who?

Re:No wonder

[Abcd1234]

And they can fsck themselves, because I never ASKED them to look at us (or me in particular) as a competitor to Microsoft. I (and many others like me) write code 'cause it's fun, because we can fill a niche, or because we just need to scratch some itch we have. Taking down the Microsoft was never a primary goal...

Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.

Re:No wonder

[fussman]

I'd hate to sound like a Stallman whore when saying this (mods, please don't hurt me). Linus does have great influence in respect to the kernel, as most of you know, is a CORE of an operating system. Last time I checked, CORE != ENTIRE_OS
Last time I checked, many different entites controlled the remaining parts. Such entites include those who own Red Hat, those who own Debian, those who own Mandrake, etc. In respect to the parent, it is filled with garbage, and therefore should be ignored. Besides, there isn't any re-education being done by Linus, nor has there been such activities.

Thank you, good night

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

It's not a swiss army knife.

Well, it is. But the game has changed. It's not about pragmatism anymore, or at least it shouldn't be. We stepped into the spotlight as a community that claimed it had a better product than the competition.

Are we backing down now and stating that we can't deliver, instead claiming that we're a thinktank, a group of problem-solvers rather than solution providers?

Open Source is perfectly capable of delivering something superior to a commercial product. Fundamental lack of organisation, the wrong attitude, and no motivation to write the necessary glue to make the operating system feel good to the end-user or even the server administrator of the future is going to be its downfall.

Until Linux can be installed in five clicks, can print, scan, facsimile, run a wordprocessor and web browser that are completely interoperable via drag and drop, and do all the other nice *little* things a real operating system and not a collection of parts can do, it's not going to get anywhere.

Re:No wonder

[Eight 01]

The real incentive for open source is saving money. Saving money is the same as earning money.

This motivation will most likely be felt by large companies, many already have huge IT departments. If the large banks (each has thousands of coders) adopted OS, they could save hundreds of dollars per desktop across the entire company. Missing features (such as a media server) could be implemented by all those IT people who would otherwise be trying to come up with workarounds to Microsoft forced-upgrades and other marketing BS.

Re:No wonder

[Dastardly]

The success of a product at large depends on every developer having a common goal; the success of the product at large. It's not going to work to say "I need a text editor that does color coding of my HTML" and ignore basic needs like printing, display, sound and document model subsystems that the users truly need.

Why not? If all you need is a "text editor that does color coding of my HTML", and it fits your needs you just do it, and put it out there. Now, some one else might need the same thing with printing, so rather than write the text editor part on their own, they add printing to the original code. But, it does generally require a user with a need and the programming skill to write code to fulfill that need. That is where business comes into the picture. I am IBM and my customer needs a computer that does a list of things. I can give them 90% of those things with Open Source code already available. 5% requires changes to Open Source code which I then return to the Open Source projects. The other 5% involves custom code on top of the Open Source software, and/or code so customer specific that releasing the source doesn't make sense. I can make this solution available to the customer for less than the cost of using proprietary software, and possibly end up with a higher profit margin.

Dastardly

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until Linux can be installed in five clicks, can print, scan, facsimile, run a wordprocessor and web browser that are completely interoperable via drag and drop.."

umm.. where have you been the past couple of years? the more professional linux distributions like RedHat and Suse set this up for you when you install.

Oh, and does MS Office come with Windows XP? NO.. openoffice/staroffice usually does come bundled in with a store bought linux distro. And please don't mention "WordPad" or notepad.

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

RedHat invariably does silly things like fail to initialize a network card, and lemme tell you, in a networked environment this is a not so good thing.

RedHat and other mainstream userfriendly distributions have the pieces lined up, but they're not there yet as many MANY people will tell you.

Windows may crash and it may be unrighteous and all that good stuff we like to tell ourselves, but it behaves in a consistent manner on supported hardware, it has a list of supported hardware, a huge list of third party software titles, and it just works by brainlessly clicking things.

You still can't do this even in RedHat 9. You risk breaking KDE, or GNOME, or whichever desktop you chose during the install, because they themselves are also fragile. I can't tell you the number of bugs I've run into with either environment which completely corrupt a new user's preferences.

Then what are they left with? Oh yeah, a STOCK GNOME desktop! D'oh.

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.

Good point, and I'm inclined to agree.

A conundrum that's come to me lately (and struck a chord with me in this article) is what indicates the growth and maturation of an operating system?

I came to 'ease of use' because it's in my background; as a program becomes more mature it typically becomes more polished, more sensible to the user.

Linux remains extremely powerful as a command line OS, and it should forever be that. True power lies in being able to fundamentally interact with a computer system.

But what purpose does it serve except to intellectually stimulate hobbyists? That leaves me a bit unfulfilled. Wouldn't it be an ideal to see Linux be able to compete with others instead of remaining in a class of its own?

Re:No wonder

[molarmass192]

Actually, OSS is very much based on capitalism in it's truest sense. Capitalism is based on the inalienable right of ownership. If you contribute to the kernel, you own your contribution and nobody can take that away from you. There are rules dictating what you can DO with your contribution but you are still very much it's owner.

By contrast, communism is based on the lack of ownership. The BSD license is a borderline example of this since it makes it very easy for someone to revoke your right of ownership with even the slightest modification to the source code.

On the other hand, Microsoft is a good example of fascism since you never own but rather license their software under their strict terms. Your are forbidden from doing anything with their software without their express consent.

There's your politics lesson for the day, now go troll elsewhere.

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

I'm not trying to discourage people from writing a comfy HTML editor. :P

Your remarks regarding adding printing to the original code; typically that's not what I see happening. I usually see someone rewrite the editor from scratch and advertise their version as having printing capabilities.

Your analogies about reusing code advantageously are exactly what I would love to see happen with open source, rather than the code duplication that happens instead.

Are you a programmer? We need more of them like you.

Re:No wonder

[Trolling4Dollars]

Can you tell me what the problem is with giving your ideas back to a pool from which you have taken something? I think it's a pretty fair approach. I find the idea of taking someone else's work and building on it or even improving it, but keeping all the improvements to yourself rather selfish and unfair.

Re:No wonder

[Mr.Intel]

Communism REQUIRES a transitional facist period where a central state stricly *controls everything* This is to re-educate the working class and to ensure there will not be any corruption.

Wrong. Cummunism is the result of a cycle beginning with Fuedalism. Then capitalism, socialism and finally communism. At least that is what Marx and Engel wrote in their manifesto. Capitalism is the state of economic affairs where there is two classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) and the people are detached from the government. Socialism combines the two classes but leaves the government seperated from the people. Ideally, communism would have the state dissapear completely because the people would not need any centralized control (they are obviously happy according to Marx).

For the record, Fascism is when the state controls the means of distribution, socialism is where the state controls the means of production.

In this case Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, is closer to the central state than the any of the GPL hordes. [conspiracy] I even think that the GPL will ensure that, once Microsoft does control everything, the transition from central control to responsible individual control will be forced to occur where it failed in the past. [/conspiracy] Still, this is more anarchism or libertarian than communist as history defines it.

Microsoft is the epitome of capitalism turning into socialism. As Microsoft completes its domination of the software market, it will control the means of production. Since the people have no purchasing choice, they are controlled. Open Source is, as the parent poster points out, close to ideal communism. Communism as a model is too flawed for practical use because it is the nature of man to be selfish. Hobbes and Machiavelli trumps Marx and Sir Thomas More every time.

Also, motivation [to] do what you want vs. money earned to do what you hate is far more of an incentive for most.

Motivation is important, but motivation to survive is supreme. I would rather code for Microsoft and feed my kids than code for free and enjoy it!

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

For schmoe user who reads Ballmers words and understands that Windows is sexier and easier for them.

I do understand the interest and desire to write software to fill needs and satisfy interests. I think it's one of open source's greatest strengths, the freedom to create.

But as a community, probably because of a minority of loud voices have made claims which the community is unable to back up, and that bugs me to no end.

If we're not here to replace Microsoft, someone should speak up and say so, even if it knocks RedHat and the profiteers on their asses.

Re:No wonder

[drunk_as_in_beer]

I believe that the core group of open source developers have incentive, and that beating Microsoft.

If you think that open source developers are driven by the desire to "beat Microsoft," I believe you are mistaken. It is the fanboys that scream "open source must do this to beat Microsoft." These fanboys are rarely actual developers. The developers are writing software. Their reasons? For the creative and intellectual stimulation, for practice and improvement of their skills, and/or for work-related functionality. Granted there are a small amount of OSS developers who are raging fanboys determined to beat Microsoft, but they are a minority.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why you check out the hardware compatiblity lists BEFORE you buy something.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

[snip]

The radical and international definition of a communist society given by Marx and Engels inevitably leads to the perspective of a transition (transition period) between capitalism and communism, Marx and Engels first, notably in their writings about the Paris Commune - The Civil War in France - and in their Critique of the Gotha Programme (of the German social-democratic party), Lenin later - especially in his book State and Revolution - tried to give at least a general sketch of what that transition would be like. It centres around the following ideas:

The proletariat, as the only social class radically opposed to private ownership of the means of production, and likewise as the only class which has potentially the power to paralyse and overthrow bourgeois society, as well as the inclination to collective co-operation and solidarity which are the motive forces of the building of communism, conquers political (state) power. It uses that power ('the dictatorship of the proletariat') to make more and more 'despotic inroads' into the realm of private property and private production, substituting for them collectively and consciously (planned) organised output, increasingly turned towards direct satisfaction of needs. This implies a gradual withering away of market economy.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, however, being the instrument of the majority to hold down a minority, does not need a heavy apparatus of full-time functionaries, and certainly no heavy apparatus of repression. It is a state sui generis, a state which starts to wither away from its inception, i.e. it starts to devolve more and more of the traditional state functions to self-administrating bodies of citizens, to society in its totality. This withering away of the state goes hand in hand with the indicated withering away of commodity production and of money, accompanying a general withering away of social classes and social stratification, i.e. of the division of society between administrators and administrated, between 'bosses' and 'bossed over' people.

[/snip]

Re:No wonder

[Karn]

Linux != Redhat, or Debian, or Mandrake.

Yes, Linus has much control over the 'official' Linux kernel, but there are many branches of the kernel, and if Linus decided to one day become evil, the world could switch to a non-evil branch.

How in the world could you consider this fascism? Linus encourages other people to fork the kernel, for crying out loud.

Re:No wonder

[Gordonjcp]

Well, yeah. Didn't you read the original poster's name? "unterderbrucke"? "Under the bridge", if you translate?

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you are forced to hand over any source code changes you make at gnupoint ::snicker::

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

the day has come..... DRM! oh dear

Re:No wonder

[rkz]

and then you can sack them all except a few who install patches! more money saved :-D

Re:No wonder

[Minna Kirai]

Communism REQUIRES a transitional facist period

That "requirement" was an invention of Lenin and Trotsky.

They attempted (successfully) to redefine Communism away from Marx's idea (which are probably impossible to implement) into something they could work with (which was somewhat possible to implement, but impossible to sustain)

Re:No wonder

[I_redwolf]

No, who cares? That's like saying wouldn't it be nice to see porsche compete with a family sedan. Porsches are expensive, they aren't all that user friendly and not everyone can drive one; hence they are in a class of their own.

Can someone use the porsche engine and build a userfriendly car at cheaper price that everyone can drive? Yes, that's fine but don't bother the people who've been driving their regular porsches for years.

Thats the problem, with this new influx of user everyone wants open-source to be like something and I feel the original poster would love to continue doing his own thing and not be associated with all the extra hen-pecking from the people with the new porsches beggin for fucking cup holders.

Re:No wonder

[Crispy Critters]

I (and many others like me) write code 'cause it's fun, because we can fill a niche, or because we just need to scratch some itch we have.

Why are open source coders always talking about their itches? Do they not bathe often enough? Could M$ destroy the open source movement by sending out sample bottles of calomine lotion to programmers?

Re:No wonder

[Dastardly]

I usually see someone rewrite the editor from scratch and advertise their version as having printing capabilities.

And, from that you get inefficiency. On the otherhand as long as it doesn't get too out of hand it introduces a little competition which results in better code. And, in a world of incomplete information you will definitely get people duplicating work. Especially in the early stages of development where everyone is trying to scratch the same itch, and has different priorities for which part fo the itch to scratch. I think the large number of open source web browsers are a good example of this. Mozilla, Konqueror, ... are basically web browsers, but there feature sets are slightly different, and therefore scratch different itches. One issue with web browsers is that there are multiple niches (small feature set, small foot print; large feature sets, larger footprint). What I expect wil happen is that within each niche there will be convergence on one particular code base, and given compatible licenses convergence towards at least some common code.

Are you a programmer? We need more of them like you.

Yes.

Re:No wonder

[entrigant]

OK, you went to far! A car without a cup holder is like a car without an ash tray... it doesn't even deserve the title of car. It's hard enough driving when drinking beer. Don't complicate matters by demanding we hold the cup too.

Re:No wonder

[blakestah]

We stepped into the spotlight as a community that claimed it had a better product than the competition.

We didn't step anywhere. A few marketing droids may have tried to speak on behalf of free software, but thousands of others just kept coding.

Are we backing down now and stating that we can't deliver, instead claiming that we're a thinktank, a group of problem-solvers rather than solution providers?

We never stood up, we'll never back down. Open Source is about a method of producing software and licenses and potentially freedoms. It is not agenda driven, anti-Microsoft (or anyone else).

Open Source is perfectly capable of delivering something superior to a commercial product.

Of course it is - look at Mozilla. But coding hours, and the quality of programmers matters as well as whether something was made with a DFSG-compatible license.

The point I was making is that programmers are not necessarily motivated by intellectual property. Many love to meet challenges and solve problems. And that describes a wide range of free software programmers. Others are paid to solve problems. Others work for support companies based on service. These are the reasons people write software with open source licenses.

Re:No wonder

[Phleg]

Open Source is, as the parent poster points out, close to ideal communism.

Under what rationale? Open source is as close as you can get to pure capitalism. Remember, all capitalism entails is a lack of central authority governing production. Those who create most open source software projects do it not out of altruism, but because they receive something valuable in return, which is often an aspect that is neglected by the average onlooker.

When someone creates a project, they do it out of a desire for certain functionality. They feel, however, that it is more than a fair tradeoff to relinquish much of the central control offered by copyrights in order to attain the far better quality, innovation, and speed at which open source software is developed. Other beneficial factors involve credit for work and experience. Many open source projects are started when somebody wants to learn about a language, a certain type of program, or the hardware it runs opon. Hell, this was Linus' rationale for creating Linux in the first place.

Re:No wonder

[Elwood P Dowd]

Redhat isn't trying to replace Microsoft where it doesn't make sense. If you hire RHAT consultants to come redesign your company's network, they aren't going to make a hard sell to get rid of windows on the desktop, or exchange, etc.

RHAT are profiteers in the same way that most OSS developers are: their "need" is to make money. This is perfectly acceptable.

Allow those shmoe users to use Windows. It is sexier and easier for them. This is not a problem for Linux because it is not a problem for Linus, Cox, and the gang.

Again, who has a problem?

Re:No wonder

[kableh]

but it behaves in a consistent manner on supported hardware

I'm a little late in the game commenting on this, but that has got to be the most laughably untrue thing I've ever heard attributed to Windows. I'm not a zealot by any means - my shop is mixed Win2k/Solaris/Linux - but if there is one thing that Windows ISN'T it is consistent.

Windows is great, when it works. When it doesn't, it can often be as much, if not more, of a pain in the ass to fix as Linux. This applies to servers more than desktops, where Windows shines, but still...

Re:No wonder

[brad-x]

Yeargh.

RedHat can't market the software they sell as a general purpose OS yet. Not because it's simply not appropriate, but because the software isn't ready.

My perspective is this; Linux itself doesn't need to work better as a workstation, it's fine. It needs applications now.

As a server there is no competition, Linux is among the top performers in the industry, and any inroads Microsoft makes will certainly be due to management making poor decisions.

On the workstation side, groups of people spend thousands of man-hours working on KDE and GNOME, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and various other workstation applications. Among these selections are a set of laudable starts, but they fall flat when it comes to actually working.

OpenOffice.org can't transfer clipboard selections to Mozilla and vice versa. Gaim is incapable in its current version of sending or receiving IM images without crashing. Licq doesn't understand the concept of a serverside contact list.

XMMS is aging and is unable to edit ID3v2 tags. GNOME's panel application for organising the desktop is crash prone. Customizing the GNOME menu requires a restart of the environment in order for things to show up. GNOME's print system is sad and has no configurator because that team 'doesn't believe in it'. KDE doesn't obey fontconfig properly.

Okay, so we have all these little tiny points, which are superfluous to you an I, because we either work around them, don't like desktop environments or user applications, or avoid using X entirely.

The thing is, these applications were DESIGNED to be userfriendly. KDE, GNOME particularly are examples of software whose express goal is to make life easy for a user who has no experience at all with UNIX.

This is the aspect that annoys me. They fail to acheive stated goals because of numerous issues, including as mentioned above the fact that people just don't want to do the dirty work of making the glue happen.

I'm on the phone as I'm typing my thoughts out, so I'm probably digressing all over the place here.

The replies I've been receiving so far with regard to my concerns are mainly 'so? we don't care about userfriendly!'

That's all well and good, but for projects dedicated to this goal, and integrated into major Linux titles like RedHat, who are marketed as easyto use and indeed easy to administer, there's a certain level of self-respect that should be accompanied by higher quality software, rather than the presently poor user-experience people have.

Oh damn, my browser segfaulted when I tried to print. Shoot, X died on me when I tried revising my resume. My NIC won't initialize! I can't check my email!

That's where I'm coming from, mainly. That's the angle from which Microsoft is going to come and attack Linux, too. They're going to present Linux as though it tried and failed miserably to appeal to the userbase.

And it may be a strawman on Microsoft's part, but still, it looks bad and the community could probably do better.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

then stop reading slashdot. the slashdot crowd has nothing to do with open source, they're mostly consumers of open source applications.

Re:No wonder

[Mr.Intel]

Under what rationale? Open source is as close as you can get to pure capitalism. Remember, all capitalism entails is a lack of central authority governing production.

Not true. Capitalism is about self-interest in economic matters. Laissez-faire economics is a type of capitalism and does not call for "hands off" governmental regulation but careful regulation. Therefore, capitalism is not about a lack of centralization, it is about keeping the means of production and distribution in private hands. Ideal communism is about there not being a government to regulate anything because the people giver everything they have to the common good.

Those who create most open source software projects do it not out of altruism, but because they receive something valuable in return, which is often an aspect that is neglected by the average onlooker.

If the value they receive is not monetary, then it has no place in an argument involving economic models.

When someone creates a project, they do it out of a desire for certain functionality. They feel, however, that it is more than a fair tradeoff to relinquish much of the central control offered by copyrights in order to attain the far better quality, innovation, and speed at which open source software is developed. (emphasis added).

Is this not altruism?

Other beneficial factors involve credit for work and experience.

Still not talking about economics here.

Many open source projects are started when somebody wants to learn about a language, a certain type of program, or the hardware it runs opon. Hell, this was Linus' rationale for creating Linux in the first place.

Beginnings do not entirely explain the ends. Marx's vision of communism did not include the brutality that was employed under Stalin and Mao, even though their proclaimed desire was to 'liberate' the slaves of capitalism.

Re:No wonder

[renard]

Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.

No such thing. I suggest you read up a bit more on the history of the open-source movement (or try C-h C-p in your emacs window). Open source was political before the first GPL, back when it was still just a gleam in RMS's eye. And without GNU, once (that is, if) Linus was able to compile his first kernel, he would have had no software to run with it.

If you think the freedoms you have (to code, to compile, to speak, to think) are not the direct result of someone else's politicization some 2, 20, or 200 years ago, then you are sorely mistaken. Similarly, it is our politicization that will preserve those freedoms for our children and grandchildren.

Or not.

-renard

Re:No wonder

[Billly Gates]

How does giving away my code equate the same as a corrupt form of government that hates everyone who *might* be an enemy and discourages self reliance for that reason?

Hmmm I don't of this is similiar to opensource but I do know of a certain software company that this term more models to.

MS hates competition at any cost and will do whaterver means possible to get rid of it, wants people dependant on them, fucks customers in the ass, corrupts our government, ruled as a monopoly, etc.

Communism hates competition from the local people( starting a bussiness not approved by the government), wants people dependant on them, fucks people in the ass and violates human rights, government is corrupted to the core, ruled as a monopoly( the one government monopoly).

Linus stated once that those who favor a free market should not side with Microsoft because in a truly free market there needs to be competition. Because there is none Microsoft itself is more communistic.

If I chose to give away my code I am not forcing any economic model. Its my right. Similiarly Linus stated that he will not oppose drm in a story yesterday. Why? Because the second he does so, Linux loses its ability as an os for whoever wants it. He does not care about social issues. He loves Unix and programming and he gives it out so others can have the same freedoms.

Communism is a dirty word in America and especially in the bussiness community. This is why Balmer is using the term.

This is fud and not to be taken seriously. Sadly many IT MCSE Phb's believe this crap. If someone ever asks you if you think its communism just say "How is chosing not to charge for code communism?".

Communism in theory was supposed to be an alternative economic model to relieve the issues of classes and social injustice. In pratice it creates a new upper class( military/government) that is more viscious then the previous upper class. Communism was also a way to ensure equal access to resources.

Linux is just software. It was not designed to be an alternative economic model or to change the software industry. Its about guys who love writing software. Yes there may be some similiarities in price but the motives are totally different and the motives change everything.

Re:No wonder

[fymidos]

Now, *that* reminds me of the "shared source" thingie, no :>

Re:No wonder

[fymidos]

keeping all the improvements to yourself rather selfish and unfair

No, it's not, it's perfectly normal, and in fact you are allowed to do it under the GPL.

You are not allowed to distribute that work, without the source code, taking credit and/or money for the work of others.

Re:No wonder

[TheLastUser]

Maybe you guys are trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole. Maybe OSS and FS have NOTHING to do with either capitalism OR communism.

Maybe Balmer is just out to slander Linux by equating it with something that most people feel is a failed thing (communism). The MS dude also went on about how Linux is a clone of a 20 year old OS, to make it sound like Linux is a PDP-11 kind of thing. Sounds like more crap to get people to continue to shell out for his company's overpriced, EULA encrusted, somewhat functional, largely undocumented, client lock-in mechanism.

Some, facts, as I see them:

People write OSS because of altruism.
People write OSS because of idealism.
People write OSS because they are paid to.
People write OSS because they want better OSS software.

Unix has thrived for 20 years because of its ablilty to adopt and include new ideas while bringing along the old. When this is coupled with Gnu type licensing, to ensure that the competitive nature of the code additions are maintained this can only lead to good software. In the current state of affairs, I see Microsoft as holding up a rennaisance in computer software, but that's what monopolies do. They try like mad to control the market instead of competing with better products. Balmer will keep spouting blech until no one is interested in interviewing him.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source was political before the first GPL, back when it was still just a gleam in RMS's eye.

Stallman refers to it as Free software, not Open Source, and he's quite dogmatic about it :). "Free" in this case means the GPL enforcing that users must pass on source code with binaries, to ensure that all people have access to the source, while with some Open Source licenses (e.g. BSD) the code can be closed again.

Re:No wonder

[orius_khan]

Windows may crash and it may be unrighteous and all that good stuff we like to tell ourselves, but it behaves in a consistent manner on supported hardware, it has a list of supported hardware, a huge list of third party software titles, and it just works by brainlessly clicking things.

AHHH HAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA... woooo that was a killer one man. Wow... I'm crying from laughing so hard.... my chest hurts!

My biggest hatred of Windows of all flavors is that it is completely INCONSISTENT in its behavior. A server will sit there running fine for days, then all of a sudden burps and services just die or the whole system hangs, or some function/program will simply refuse to start, or some other disastrous behavior.

You check any settings that are related to the issue at hand, none of them seem to have any effect on the behavior. So what is the catch-all solution that fixes odd problems like this 80% of the time? That's right... REBOOT THE COMPUTER. That's absolutely ludicrous, rebooting should NOT be required, nor should it even have any effect on properly written code, but unfortunately it does on Windows...

Things DO break on Linux (and most of my experience is with RedHat Linux). It usually happens when 'up2date' runs, caused by some config file incorrectly not being marked as a config and being overwritten with the generic default version of it, or it doesn't overwrite it and the new ver of the program doesn't support the old config syntax, or some other similarly stupid bungle by the package manager people. However, when something breaks on Linux, it stays the fuck broken until you figure out what the problem is. Rebooting rarely ever fixes the problem, and is only required when updating the kernel.

And although many bizarre Linux problems are arcane and difficult to figure out, at least it's actually possible because every config file is PLAIN TEXT, and although it may take you hours of research to learn what every line of the bizare syntax means in the Linux config file and figure out the problem, once you do you can fix it yourself and then it works perfectly after that.

Compare that to Windows where almost every config-type file is in a secret binary format, and your solution options usually consist entirely of: playing "Reboot Roulette" and hoping that when it does finally randomly crash that it happens at 4am when few people are actually trying to access the machine.

Not to mention that if there is an actual error in the newly patched code (as opposed to a config file error), and if you are so inclined, you can go look at the source code of the latest patch and compare it to what was there before, and find out what the actual problem is. And even if you are NOT so inclined, you can usually find a place to post a bug report and there's a possibility that someone who contributes code to the project will see it, and occasionally will reply back to you, and often will shortly be followed by an updated patch fixing the problem. When was the last time you submitted a bug report to Microsoft without spending $190 per incident (and gotten any kind of response)? And how many of those times did it result in a new update being issued in the near future to fix the problem? YOUR results may be different, but for me and everyone I've ever talked to, the answer to both questions is "never".

Now the Linux desktop seems to be far less 'polished' than the server side of it, for sure. I have spent way more time dealing with server services than with Desktop programs, but for a server I consider a complex GUI system to be a major hindrance and not a benefit. Sure you can just change options by clicking a check box and then "OK". But the number of times I've come across a checkbox/pulldown/whatever that was grayed-out (disabled) without any indication WHY that option was not available, or had some handful of options that are ambiguously worded and contain no helpful help messages FAR outways the "brainlessly easy" benefits of the GUI.

<Tangent

Re:No wonder

[dbrutus]

Enlightened self-interest decrees that some things are better given away for free, other things are better sold. Having a public domain, a village commons, or other institution that does not charge money does not make the society that has this or that feature communist.

The tragedy of the commons is that the freeloaders always end up vastly outnumbering those who give back to maintain common property which is why those of us in capitalist societies are driven further and further into privatization as the decades go by. But software is different in that it can sustain a far higher load of freeloaders than just about any enterprise on the planet.

If you write a piece of software and submit it to sourceforge, whether 10, 100, 1000, or 100,000 people use the stuff does not appreciably change the work you do after you've written it or at least anything like most other forms of human endeavor.

Re:No wonder

[dbrutus]

I thought that Ballmer really demonstrated that he didn't get it with the 20 year old comment. There are a significant number of people in the enterprise who think that MS is still too new, too green, to be included in their bet the business computing environments. Having something that has a 20 year heritage seems pretty good by comparison.

Re:No wonder

[dbrutus]

If you want that level of user friedliness in a Unix, get a Mac. You'll find that Apple's X11 beta already supports MacOS clipboard integration so any app can swap clipboard data (and that's just one example).

Apple's survived for this long expressly because they are positively anal retentive about the user experience. If it matters to you, seriously look at them.

Re:No wonder

[SiChemist]

OpenOffice.org can't transfer clipboard selections to Mozilla and vice versa.

Not to be too nitpicky, but I just did this without the slightest difficulty. I also think the poster is being too easy on Windows and Windows apps. No one blames Microsoft when windows applications (that they didn't write) don't work well together, but everyone wants to blame some vague concept of "open source" or "linux" when apps written to different APIs don't interoperate.

Re:No wonder

[bigchris]

If they are so anally retentive about user experience then they really aught to go back to OS 9.x days. These worked fine.

I have to support users on OS X. It's a nightmare. While it's never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop, getting an end user to get around in OS X is unbeleivably hard.

Ever tried getting someones printer to share in OS X? don't start trying, lest you knock yourself out from banging your head on the wall.

Re:No wonder

[bigchris]

This is where GNOME comes in...

Incidently, all those C++ coders should have a look at gtkmm and gnomemm - have a search on slashdot

Re:No wonder

[dbrutus]

"never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop"?

I think you have some issues here. OS 9 compared to Windows and certainly Linux has always been viewed as the ease of use winner. What operating system are you comparing MacOS 9 to in order to arrive at this dubious conclusion?

As for OSX printer sharing, are you trying to get a mac's printer to be seen by others or are you trying to get a mac to see windows printers?

If the former, you open the system preferences application, click on sharing, then click on printer sharing (ooh, unbelievably hard isn't it). The latter can be done but requires a little more effort and instructions can be found here.

CUPS was a 3rd party hack in 10.1 and standard in 10.2. I expect that by 10.3 they'll make a nice UI for it. But look at where we're starting from. The conversation's about an easy to use Unix. At worst, Mac OS X is as powerful as Linux and as hard to use for uses that the Apple team hasn't created a GUI for. These cases are getting fewer and further apart with every iteration. Admittedly, printing was one of the weakest parts of 10.0 but the only case where you even have to do a hack these days is for printers that are smb shared and do not have appletalk options, IP printing, rendezvous, Lexmark inkjet networking, jetdirect, LPD/LPR, or are not registered with directory services.

For large installations, it would probably be best if you tied in directory services to your active directory tree and all printers available with active directory would also become available to your mac (and if there are no Mac drivers, standard CUPS drivers are available and easily installed).

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I think the "others" are beginning to compete with Linux.

I have learned that "intuitive" really means "familiar".

When Word finally started being useful as a word processor, people new to Word were slightly more productive with it than when using WP5.1, but if you stuck a WP user in front of Word, they were almost completely useless. To the WP user, there was nothing intuitive about Word, or Windows for that matter.

Or the people who bought the Apple matra of "no CLI", even if they used Windows.

Every time a new version of Windows comes out, I get to be pissed off again because some of the common stuff I do has now become different. Change for Change's sake is good for "Dummies Guide" authors, trainers, etc., but is a complete moronic waste of so much time.

Even simple shit like changing File->Find to File->Search is a waste, when most other programs, even new ones, use File->Find.

There is nothing intuitive about many changes Microsoft makes in new versions of their software.

Re:No wonder

[Trolling4Dollars]

OK... let me clarify. Keeping the improvments to your self while getting personal gain (whether it's monetary or noteriety) is selfish and unfair. Of course, I despise details like that and politics in general. Personally, I just say, "do something cool, give it away and make it clear that no one should be able to ruin it." Simple. Problem is a lot of people get wrapped up in unimportant details. That is EXTREMELY frustrating. No one told me when I was born that I would need to be a lawyer and a politician to make it through life.

Re:No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"So far, all communist regimes have failed to leave this state because of centralized corruption, but that's another story all together."
And, of course, Communism in the USSR failed because nothing really changed in the transfer of power from the Tsarist government to the so-called Bolsheviks. The people of Russia just exchanged one aristocracy for another. The people were exploited just the same, only in their name.
I think it's funny when people (not the person I quoted.. the MS employee that first replied to this story. Hi, Mr. Balmer!) say that "there's no incentive to work" under communism. Of course there's incentive: helping yourself and your fellow man. We do this every day when we're expected to "be a team player" at work. How many people on salary actually get a bonus when they have to work extra-hard because someone on their team is sick, or a deadline approaches? Not very many of us, I bet. The only people who don't have any incentive to work are the greedy. It's as simple as that.

Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

a new version of the company's server operating system that Microsoft's CEO described as "the right product" to help companies stretch their IT budgets.

In typical parlance this means make money go further, however in this context it means 'spend money, spend more money, keep spending money', until the budget snaps like an rubberband when its elasticity has been exceded.

Well, our budget has already snapped, like the rubberband. Funny how budgets these days aren't elastic and don't stretch. Perhaps setting up a demo MySQL or Postgres Linux server might be in order to convince the powers that be that we can get along just fine without.

BTW, I love how Steve blathers on about having a corporation behind their product. Like support from that has not pricetag. We're doing without MSDN because we can't afford that. Google is my friend. Lastly, a customer can go to Microsoft and request a feature? Really? Even one as small as us? Yeah, right. Time for a little off the end?

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[rasafras]

Lastly, a customer can go to Microsoft and request a feature? Really? Even one as small as us? Yeah, right.

There is a project called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which uses primarily Microsoft architecture. It has been very successful, and as bugs come up along the way due to situations in databases which have never been tested, they can call up the company and have a patch for the bug by the next day. I guess their budget is higher than most companies', however, because they have gained a substantial amount of funding from grants. But Microsoft does work permitting that you have money and you know how to use it.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Chromodromic]

Err, your company's budget must be nil then. I'm a contractor with several large companies and financial institutions as clients, and while the economy isn't exactly booming, their budgets aren't exactly busting.

One of these companies, a Fortune 500 is based entirely on .Net now. Their budget is fine. In fact, since they standardized on Windows many moons ago, the switchover to .Net was, while not trivial, still more simple than most here might expect.

Many large companies don't want open source. They want support, they want assurance, they want compliance with existing standards. For large corporations, ditching Oracle in favor of PostgreSQL would be *extremely* costly, involving training and no small amount of anxiety on the parts of managers. The benefits would be hard to sell. Yeah, yeah, I know, user community, blah, free software, blah, blah. But you'd be surprised by how little weight these arguments carry with executives who do have budgets (and that's many), and who want to spend time furthering their projects, not accommmodating open source changeovers that they don't really understand and that, from their perspective, are only significant to technocrats-in-the-know.

Which is true. The average user doesn't give a rip if he's pulling a query from PostgreSQL or MySQL or SQL Server or Oracle, he just wants the information and then he wants to go to lunch, thank you, bye. This might not include the average *technical* user, but there are many more people out there who just want to open up Word and type their letter than bother about whether their word processor is open source and if Richard Stallman would approve of their choice of office software.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[swb]

I've been told when I've made MS support calls on Win2k server that they will generate customer-specific patches if you can demonstrate a bug.

I had a senior Cisco sales guy offer me a custom IOS load with some features unavailable to the unwashed masses. I turned that one down because it would be impossible to update.

Although I think no vendor will do feature changes or enhancements unless you're huge or its part of your support contract.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[richieb]

For large corporations, ditching Oracle in favor of PostgreSQL would be *extremely* costly, involving training and no small amount of anxiety on the parts of managers. The benefits would be hard to sell. Yeah, yeah, I know, user community, blah, free software, blah, blah.

What about paid for technical support directly from the developers? Check pgsql.com. Very few places really need Oracle.

Read up on JBoss to see how this kind of business model is doing.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[dh003i]

They want support, they want assurance, they want compliance with existing standards

All of which FS/OSS offers at competitve prices, which is much better deal than you can get from MS. Btw, you get no assurance with MS software -- all software licenses explicitly deny any assurance. So that's just fuzzy buzzword thinking on the part of stupid executives who don't really know wtf they're talking about.

As for support, that is purchased at competitive rates which are much better than anything you can get from MS. Furthermore, you'll get better support, precisely because there is competition. On a personal note, I get better support for free from Gentoo Forums than I get from Gateway for $300.

The benefits of using FS/OSS also scale very well, in that the more computers you use an FS/OSS product on, the more money you save, compared to using MS NT/2k/XP/2.003k. Oh yea, and there's also the fact that you don't have to worry about hundred-million dollar extortion-attempts from the BSA. These benefits -- though providing the most savings for large companies -- are extremely crucial for smaller companies.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

Err, your company's budget must be nil then.

Very close to nil. Our problem is that this is reality. We've dumped a lot of money in the past two years into MS products and training, only to see we need to continue to spend more money. We're a development shop, generally we could care less about users of Office, etc., (though my first retrieve from an SQL DB and export as XML was less than impressive in the way Excel understood it, hmm) We develop apps to run in a browser, pretty much any browser. They run on the server. Some servers are NT4 others 2000, yet to get an XP server up, but with luck that should be soon.

Our challenge is to support our current customers and grow our product line (a common theme, no?) Often we're stuck because Microsoft doesn't actually provide support for some ODBC driver, yet the damn thing shows up just fine, tables and schema, in Visual Studio .NET, I've researched it about as far as I can go, some company will sell us support, but again we don't have money. If I had the c code to this mess I'd pick a similar driver, find what's missing, code the support in and off we'd go, but sorry, you don't get source with your O/S. It's like trying to swim with your shoes on.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Master Bait]

In this day and age, lies are bankable commodities. Believability increases with increased media exposure.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

Very few places really need Oracle.

Effectively, you get Oracle if you're a heavy duty DB shop, because the initial costs and overhead are considerable. Microsoft is more of a middle tier provider (looking to grow) and FoxBase/Access for smaller concerns. Trying to run PG&E billing on Microsoft SQL would be laughable, so long as you're not the one trying to do it.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at restricting my options because at the command line virtually any operation can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf /win' could 'delete an entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)

I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in XP. Windows pop up when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I want the change. Thankfully, Windows XP looks after my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration settings from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are. Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.

I use that spare time to reboot my Windows XP machine multiple times a day. Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.

There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable as the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks, months and years. Virtually no configuration change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the computer. Gross!

In XP I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard. (If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to use than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)

Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the configuration. Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text? Talk about dangerous!

I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed, I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something about lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux crowd.

By sheer size alone, Windows XP beats Linux hands down. It is so much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For this reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit, the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space than that.

It is no surprise that Windows XP costs $300 on the retail market and Linux doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want Windows XP. Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and app

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

lies are bankable commodities

That's SPIN, thank you very much.

Believability increases with increased media exposure.

This isn't anything particularly new though Microsoft, initially a slow learner, has certainly learned the ropes. There was a time Bill Gates eschewed politics. Nothing like a few anti-trust battles to adjust that thinking.

Notice how Steve "The Salesman" Ballmer talks. Where Bill was once combative, even arrogant, Steve is smoother, more dangerous.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

All of which FS/OSS offers at competitve prices, which is much better deal than you can get from MS. Btw, you get no assurance with MS software -- all software licenses explicitly deny any assurance. So that's just fuzzy buzzword thinking on the part of stupid executives who don't really know wtf they're talking about.

Sorry, but what assurances does open source give you? And you are wrong. Go look at some Oracle assurances. If you lose data at the fault of Oracle, you get assurances for free retrieval, as well as different packages to get paid for data loss. Lets see Postgres offer that.

On a personal note, I get better support for free from Gentoo Forums than I get from Gateway for $300.

Enterprise != Personal systems. Most slashdotters don't realize this. Your $300 sale from Gateway doesn't mean shit. A $3M sale, does. They don't give a shit about you. Deal with it.

The benefits of using FS/OSS also scale very well, in that the more computers you use an FS/OSS product on, the more money you save, compared to using MS NT/2k/XP/2.003k. Oh yea, and there's also the fact that you don't have to worry about hundred-million dollar extortion-attempts from the BSA. These benefits -- though providing the most savings for large companies -- are extremely crucial for smaller companies.

Lets see some open source clusters, then. True enterprise level clusters, like what Sun provides. Oh wait, that's right, you can't. What about SAN support? Oops, something else open source doesn't do. You really need to get out into the real enterprise world. It must be nice to be so ideological to just ignore reality... I wish I could do that.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Alan]

The new licensing tactics are working against them here as well. The cost of licensing, or going through an audit, to confirm compliance for all users having office is just much too high compared to rolling out openoffice. OO doens't have all the features, and can be broken, but the cost is just too high to *not* do it.

From what I've seen MS has gotten greedy.... they now have pretty much everyone in their pockets (90% or whatever) and they now can go to $random_large_company and simply say "here is a bill for either a) licensing for the next year for our $product licenses or b) the cost of an audit to ensure you are in compliance with our licenses". There've been more than one story on /. about this sort of thing, but it's definately here, and at least here (in our canada/us wide insurance brokerage) this sort of thing means that OO.o is being rolled out this summer.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Female]

We're doing without MSDN because we can't afford that.

Uh.. have you ever been to http://msdn.microsoft.com/library
It's free...

Lastly, a customer can go to Microsoft and request a feature? Really? Even one as small as us? Yeah, right.

I've never requested a feature but I have reported code errors/typos on the .NET reference on MSDN and gotten a response in a few hours thanking me for catching it and that they'll update it on the next release of the documentation.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

From what I've seen MS has gotten greedy.

It's not that they're greedy, but that they have grown big, fast, and now need to keep the same revenue coming in as they did on the way up the ladder.

One financial analysis firm described them as a 'Mature Company', which means they have achieved most of the growth they could expect, now must focus on steady, slower growth and maintaining their market. Not easy when you consider many existing customers will look at what they already have invested in and be very skeptical of need to further invest while the present infrastructure does what they need. i.e. I know several people still plugging away on Win95 on Pentium 90-133 systems and quite content to remain there as they can already do everything they need.

The keys to squeezing revenue from these people are two:

Enhance, such that some feature everyone must have, so customers return on a regular basis.

Terminate old product, support. If Microsoft had built a feature in which made the O/S expire at a given number of years/months/days these existing customers would need to buy a replacement.

Convincing customers that they need XML and that .NET gives you functionality with XML in spades, well, that's the first way of doing it. I think XML is fine, but I think Microsoft is overselling it's usefulness.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[ackthpt]

Searching MSDN libraries I have done. Usually the reference comes up with a Google search, and more often than not, Google reveals other sites which are far more helpful. Microsoft technical documentation, pardon the comparison, is a bit like the Bible, it was written then people spent the next 2,000 years figuring out what it means. I'm sure this could be the start of a large an boisterous thread, but my intent is to say: The answers are there, but it usually takes the help of others to figure out what it means/how to apply it, and being able to talk to the original author would probably save a lot of time and bother (i.e. get a membership)

Most of the problems we've encountered require spending money on code written by other people. We're coders and we're positive we could do this simply ourselves, assuming they'd just inform us where to find the right classes. VB6 was rather neat in all the little hidden things you could find just by hitting '.' or putting up a '(' I've certainly discovered there are properties, methods, etc. which Intellisense doesn't tell the coder about now, but some if you type them in actually work. Very mysterious.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Female]

The answers are there, but it usually takes the help of others to figure out what it means/how to apply it

I think maybe your comphrension skills are lacking. I have no problem using the reference on msdn. And I also just use a $15 text editor to do all my coding - so don't have the help of Intellisense, nor do I have a MSDN subscription.

I'm not really sure what a MSDN membership gets you besides being able to download a bunch of software without licenses for testing/debugging purposes.

I believe the authors of all the articles and documentation are listed right there on every page, and you can email them if you want! See my comment above:
I have reported code errors/typos on the .NET reference on MSDN and gotten a response in a few hours thanking me for catching it and that they'll update it on the next release of the documentation.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

best AC post ever!

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[johnnyb]

This is the big point most people miss. With open-source, you usually have _direct_ access to the top developers. In a paid standpoint, you have even closer relationships with them. They are your _partner_, not your adversary.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Zordak]

Go look at some Oracle assurances. If you lose data at the fault of Oracle, you get assurances for free retrieval, as well as different packages to get paid for data loss. Lets see Postgres offer that.

Dang, Microsoft bought Oracle now too? Or did you not notice that he was saying Microsoft doesn't give you the assurances they seem to imply?

Lets see some open source clusters, then. True enterprise level clusters, like what Sun provides.

First Oracle, now Sun too? This must have been a busy week. That's too bad because Sun had some really good products, but now that MS bought them out, I guess they'll just be selling slapped together Wintel servers with no guarantees on reliability.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[EnVisiCrypt]

*golf clap*

Well played, sir.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

Dang, Microsoft bought Oracle now too? Or did you not notice that he was saying Microsoft doesn't give you the assurances they seem to imply?

We're not a Microsoft shop, but I do know of certain insurance packages available for data integrity. Whether they are actually based by Microsoft or implementation houses, they exist. When you compare open source to enterprise level services, it's not a fair comparison. Enterprise databases come with support packages open source software can't compete with. His claims about the assurances that open source software provides are unsubstantiated and completely false.

First Oracle, now Sun too? This must have been a busy week. That's too bad because Sun had some really good products, but now that MS bought them out, I guess they'll just be selling slapped together Wintel servers with no guarantees on reliability.

He was comparing his Gateway support, and that's ok, but I can't compare Sun to open source? Riight. If you are going to be an open source zealot, you have to take into account that Microsoft is not the only providor of proprietary systems.

Open source is not the end-all solution. You cannot do everything with open source. His gentoo forums may provide all the service he needs, but when it comes to my databases, our Oracle support contract is worth more than anything Postgres or MySQL can hope to provide.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Jason Earl]

Exactly, Microsoft is a mature company that is not likely to experience the astronomical growth that they have had in the past. There's nothing wrong with that, Microsoft makes a big fat pile of money.

Unfortunately, Microsoft employees aren't really focused on Microsoft's business, but rather they are focused on the MSFT stock price. You see, a great deal of their personal wealth is wrapped up Microsoft stock, and they want to see that stock go up. To Microsoft management and employees the idea that Microsoft is not a growth company is the highest form of blasphemy. You see, their Price/Earnings ratio still has them pegged as a growth company. If the market decides that Microsoft has stopped growing, then their stock price will drop so that their P/E ratio is much closer to 10.

Microsoft could kill Linux tomorrow simply by dropping their prices. Microsoft has profit margin to give. However, this would almost certainly trigger a market realization that Microsoft is done growing. To most Microsofties this would be the kiss of death for their own personal finances, and it would put a serious crimp in Microsoft's business plan. After all, Microsoft makes a great deal of money investing in their own stock, and they also use MSFT stock as a primary motivator for their employees.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[(startx)]

I wondered why this sounded familiar and not related to the topic at hand, and then I remebered this. Just because you did a s/NT/XP/g doesn't remove the plagerism of a 6 year old article.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

Open source is not the end-all solution. You cannot do everything with open source. His gentoo forums may provide all the service he needs, but when it comes to my databases, our Oracle support contract is worth more than anything Postgres or MySQL can hope to provide.

Correct Open Source is not the end all solution, but your Oracle Support contract has nothing to do with Open Source or Closed Source. It has to do with what your support provider is willing to provide. There is no reason some one could not offer the same level of support you get from Oracle for Postgres. Whether anyone ever does has more to do with business and competetive issues than technical reasons. i.e. an equivalent support contract would not cost that much less for Postgres than Oracle support + licenses. Because the Postgres supporter will still have to stress test code to make sure they don't get hammered. After that, the discount would still have to be enough to overcome Oracle's reputation in this area.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

Correct Open Source is not the end all solution, but your Oracle Support contract has nothing to do with Open Source or Closed Source. It has to do with what your support provider is willing to provide. There is no reason some one could not offer the same level of support you get from Oracle for Postgres.

Because Postgres doesn't have the infastructure due to high costs for software licenses. That is what stops Postgres from offering that type of support. Hiring and training support staff to provide support requires a good amount of investment. Postgres, unless they received heavy investments, will never be able to do this.

Whether anyone ever does has more to do with business and competetive issues than technical reasons. i.e. an equivalent support contract would not cost that much less for Postgres than Oracle support + licenses.

True, but you have burn rate for paying consultants in training. Burn rate is offset by investments and license costs.

Because the Postgres supporter will still have to stress test code to make sure they don't get hammered. After that, the discount would still have to be enough to overcome Oracle's reputation in this area.

I honestly believe that Oracle could open source their database, and still make a fortune. Now that they have their support contracts going. They will never do it, because it's a freaking cash cow. Easy to pop down $1M+ on an Oracle installation, without support. Giving up that type of money isn't going to happen.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[1010011010]

It's a good point, too. At a previous company, we were looking at using some Veritas storage products. We had to go around and around for about a month with testing, talking to various people at the company, reporting errors and things that contradicted the sales hype, etc. before someone at Veritas actually talked to the developers of the software, who said flatly, "it won't do that, it's not designed to do that, and it will probably never do that" -- "that" being the thing that the sales people told us it would do and the thing that made us want to buy the product. Contrast that with the various open-source produces we were also using, where the answer was usually discovered the same day, and our inquiries sometimes resulted in new features being added the the product in question. We also had the ability to test the software in our enviroment, in the way we chose, without getting any interference from the Vendor. This was invaluable for interoperability and other testing.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Alien Being]

Are you related to Gerald?

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[dh003i]

what assurances does open source give you?

A few examples:

1. No worry of obnoxious code, as it's FS/OSS.
2. No worry of BSA-auditing and multimillion dollar extortion schemes.
3. No licensing headaches.
4. Infinite scaleability per each individually bought copy (as in, you can install an infinite number of copies with one purchased [or downloaded] CD).
5. Due to #4, ever-increasing savings as the number of computers onto which you install the software grows.
6. Assurance that the product will not die off simply because a company goes out of business, as it is FS/OSS. Any worthy project will be taken up by others if it's original developers move on.
7. Related to #6, ability to develop/implement your own features for your specific needs.

On another note regarding Oracle, it is basically slow crap. The executable alone is 18MB, so it naturally has poor performance; specialized database-systems will outperform it. Btw, data assurance from Oracle doesn't come for free. It costs quite a bit. And for that extra money you spend on it, it'd be better just spending that money doing an audit of FS/OSS code to insure that it won't lose data, and creating backup systems. Using journaling file systems like ReiserFS and XFS is also useful.

Enterprise != Personal systems.

Completely correct. The benefits of using FS/OSS at the enterprise level are even greater. Refer to the many research papers and discussions of companies saving millions by using GNU/Linux over Windows-2000/XP/2003. The MITRE study comes to mind: http://www.egovos.org/pdf/dodfoss.pdf This is a study funded by the government to get an objective evaluation; not some crackpot study funded by MS to make them look better.

Your $300 sale from Gateway doesn't mean shit. A $3M sale, does. They don't give a shit about you. Deal with it. Firstly, this is irrelevant to the rest of the discussion. This was simply a personal digression of mine. The point was that you can get excellent technical support for free within a community of intelligent members. If my $300 doesn't mean shit to Gateway, then they and every other OEM should stop their false advertising of "tech-support" -- because all they're doing is reading from a cookbook which we could have found online. Btw, I don't how many customers Gateway has. Let's say they have 1-million home-user customers, and each customer pays $100 for tech-support (these are obviously conservative numbers). That amounts to $100 million in tech support paid to Gateway by home-users. They damn well better care about the quality of tech support they're giving to home-users.

Lets see some open source clusters

Where have you been the last five years? Some of the world's most powerful supercomputers are Beowulf clusters, using GNU/Linux. See an O'Reilly article for an overview. In particular, GNU/Linux Beowulf clusters are being used for:

• weather forecasting
• high-energy physics problems (e.g., singularities)
• creating lifelike animations & computer-generated graphics (e.g., Matrix, Titanic, Toy Story)
• data mining
• simulation of semiconductors
• CAD systems for developing
• sequencing of the human genome

Yep, this FS/OSS stuff is really useless. It's only made the movie industry more money then from any other movie (see Titanic), assisted in the sequencing of the human genome, and assisted in the prediction of weather patterns, potentially saving lives.

What about SAN support?

Granted, I can not find any FS/OSS implementations at the moment, but there is commercial support available for GNU/Linux:

• href=http://www.globe-it.com/Products/linuxsansolu tion.htm
• ht

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh. You lost me at "several times a day". If you need to reboot XP at all during a work day you suck ass. I don't use my XP machines for services, so none of them ever have uptime more than 24 hours at a time, but it's rare I'll need to reboot an XP machine.

When you said you need to reboot XP machines several times a day you exposed yourself as someone that either doesn't have an opinion worth having or someone who lies.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

How dumbassed. A site like that would make some logical sense if it were satirically portraying a Linux fan, which is is often the kid grasping for ideological relevence (however weak)

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[c0ol]

can they go down as far as linux, no (free).

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

No worry of obnoxious code, as it's FS/OSS.

Uhm, right. Delusions must be great. Just because you can look at the code, doesn't mean you are going to. This entire discussion has been had several dozen times over, and the end result is that there can still be obnoxious code.

No worry of BSA-auditing and multimillion dollar extortion schemes.

Wrong. The BSA can still audit you.

No licensing headaches.

Uhm, SCO ring a bell? SCO vs. IBM. Keep dreaming.

Infinite scaleability per each individually bought copy (as in, you can install an infinite number of copies with one purchased [or downloaded] CD).

Please go look up what "scalability" means. Then get back to me.

Due to #4, ever-increasing savings as the number of computers onto which you install the software grows.

You just really need to go work for a few years.

Assurance that the product will not die off simply because a company goes out of business, as it is FS/OSS. Any worthy project will be taken up by others if it's original developers move on.

As opposed to FS/OSS, which just forks, or the maintainers leave it to die and nobody picks it up. Right... your idiocy knows no bounds.

Related to #6, ability to develop/implement your own features for your specific needs.

Or just buy a product that meets your needs, save development costs, have them come in and install and support it and not have to pay extraneous developers money you don't need to spend.

On another note regarding Oracle, it is basically slow crap.

Right. If your experience with Oracle is that it is slow, than it is because you are an idiot.

The executable alone is 18MB, so it naturally has poor performance;

What the fuck? I mean.. what the fuck.. this has fuck-all to do with anything. Because this car is yellow, it must go fast! You do realize that a lot of binaries are larger than 18MB and are extremely fast. An Oracle footprint can go to over 512MB on a decent sized database.. does that mean it has poor performance, too?

specialized database-systems will outperform it.

Not a properly tuned Oracle system. You just don't know shit about Oracle.

Btw, data assurance from Oracle doesn't come for free. It costs quite a bit. And for that extra money you spend on it, it'd be better just spending that money doing an audit of FS/OSS code to insure that it won't lose data, and creating backup systems. Using journaling file systems like ReiserFS and XFS is also useful.


Uh, right. Buying a platinum support contract from Oracle is much cheaper than buying a few developers and have them implement the features Oracle has, right after they do a code audit of an open source system. It must be nice to be so delusional. I bet you can have conversations with your spoon while you are watching saturday morning cartoons.

Where have you been the last five years? Some of the world's most powerful supercomputers are Beowulf clusters, using GNU/Linux. See an O'Reilly article [oreillynet.com] for an overview. In particular, GNU/Linux Beowulf clusters are being used for:

Ok, now you get to go look up a few more terms. A beowulf cluster couples the CPU power of all the systems together. If I have a compile farm, that is a type of cluster that is easily supported by open source. If I have a database cluster, that will not be supported by open source. The type of clustering that Sun does is have each server keep in sync with each other, on a kernel level. You can't do that with open source. Your problem is the only thing you know about is open source, so you think it can solve everything. Go into the field for a few years, and you'll realize you are just being an idiot right now.

Yep, this FS/OSS stuff is really useless. It's only made the movie industry more money then from any other movie (see Titanic), assisted

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

Because Postgres doesn't have the infastructure due to high costs for software licenses. That is what stops Postgres from offering that type of support. Hiring and training support staff to provide support requires a good amount of investment. Postgres, unless they received heavy investments, will never be able to do this.

I think you are a little off. I could say many years ago:

"Oracle didn't have the infrastructure to to develop a database because they don't sell hardware. Hiring and training programmer's requires a good amount of investment. Oracle, unless they received heavy investments, will never be able to develop a database."

Obviously they did this. If a return on investment is there some one will make the investment. Now convincing some one to take that kind of risk to compete against a company with Oracle's reputation may never happen with out gradually building a reputation for quality support from the bottom up. Note this has nothing to do with Closed Source or Open Source. It is Oracle's reputation and talent in this area.

True, but you have burn rate for paying consultants in training. Burn rate is offset by investments and license costs.

This is no different than a company saying I want to develop a closed source database to compete against Oracle. That burn rate is equal to paying programmers to make the database and consultants in training to support it offset by investments and license costs. Using open source the burn rate is paying for just consultants in training offset by just investments. (somewhat simplistic, I know.)

I am not saying it will happen, but that the factors in the decision have little to do with open source or closed source.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

Obviously they did this. If a return on investment is there some one will make the investment. Now convincing some one to take that kind of risk to compete against a company with Oracle's reputation may never happen with out gradually building a reputation for quality support from the bottom up. Note this has nothing to do with Closed Source or Open Source. It is Oracle's reputation and talent in this area.

This is why I said, "unless they receive heavy investments." It wont happen because they are broke ass. They are a free software providor operating on a limited scope. Postgres has a good reputation, but it isn't going to hit Oracles popularity without external investment, or unless they start charging for it and build capital that way.

I am not saying it will happen, but that the factors in the decision have little to do with open source or closed source.

The difference is, after initial development, you have capital from sales to support service agreements. If you charge $5K a year for support, and someone buys that and immediately asks for help, but your support staff is in the first day of training, the help they'll receive will be roughly shit. Where as offering shitty support for free, while building capital, then offering it after your people are adequately trained, works. That's the major difference between a closed-source startup and an open-source startup. John Draker's start-up is bypassing the need to train people but doing it himself. A lot of people aren't up for that task.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost me at "several times a day". ... When you said you need to reboot XP machines several times a day you exposed yourself as someone that either doesn't have an opinion worth having or someone who lies

Proof positive that XP users / supporters are brain surgeons... Seems this poster actually believed that you were making real arguments instead of posting comedic sarcasm...

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[dh003i]

Just because you can look at the code, doesn't mean you are going to.

No, but someone is going to. With millions of people using the software, it's almost a statistical certainty.

Wrong. The BSA can still audit you.

Let them. They can also audit my dog-house (if I had one, I hate pets [aside from snakes]). In an entirely FS/OSS environment, their audit's will be meaningless, requiring no defense. On the other hand, if you have proprietary software, you're in big trouble, because you have to provide proof that your licensed for every piece of proprietary software you have. Of course, the BSA would not target an entirely FS/OSS organization -- that would waste their money. That entire organization is criminal and corrupt anyways -- they participate in enterprise-level extortion and blackmail, and are granted priviledges analagous to those only law-enforcement officials should be granted.

Uhm, SCO ring a bell? SCO vs. IBM. Keep dreaming

God, you are a moron. That lawsuite is a pathetic joke. No-one anywhere takes that bullshit seriously. It is difficult to comprehend why SCO has made such stupid movies, but that seems to be their history. The only possible explanation is that they want to be bought out by IBM -- more enterprise-level extortion. That lawsuite won't be posing any problems for anyone anywhere. It's a fine example of where some secretary should have just read the thing and said, "That's fucking bullshit," and thrown it in the trash.

Right. If your experience with Oracle is that it is slow, than it is because you are an idiot.

That is the experience of many with Oracle in comparison to more specialized databases.

Uh, right. Buying a platinum support contract from Oracle is much cheaper than buying a few developers and have them implement the features Oracle has, right after they do a code audit of an open source system

Typical short-sighted thoughts of those in the industry thinking maybe 5 years ahead. In the long-run, it would be cheaper for companies needing a service like Oracle to band together and jointly pay for the development of such, as opposed to everyone paying Oracle continuously. Paying an external company for this software necessarily means they're (everyone who's paying for it cummulatively) paying for more than it costed to develop it, which means they're getting fucked over, compared to if they'd banded together and jointly funded it's production.

Regarding database clustering, I believe there are such enterprise-level features in the kernel-compilation program (menuconfig) for Linux 2.4. I'm on a university computer right now; when I get back to my box, I'll check it out.

Regarding the limiations of FS/OSS: yep, that's exactly why we need to continue using FS/OSS and not be tempted into using proprietary software. So that people feel the need to develop these solutions, because they need to use them.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

Or just buy a product that meets your needs, save development costs, have them come in and install and support it and not have to pay extraneous developers money you don't need to spend.

Too simplistic. You always pay for development, the question is only what portion you get allocated. Open source and software companies are simply two different means of aggregating the resources of many users in order to produce software the users need. The users always pay for development one way or another. Purchased software has the development cost in the license fees, open source software has the development costs in the support contract, the hardware purchase, the programmer on staff, or whatever other means you can think of. The question is which gets you the most productivity for your dollar.

As opposed to FS/OSS, which just forks, or the maintainers leave it to die and nobody picks it up. Right... your idiocy knows no bounds.

All software can potentially die, closed source or open source. The advantage of open source is because the source is available, if you can afford it, some one will maintain it for you. This should theoretically work for closed source software as well, but other factors come in that can push the cost above what an OSS support contract might cost. One of those factors is competition.

I'm not saying open source is bad, I'm saying get fucking real with it's limitations right now. Right now, there is a lot of shit you can't do with open source.

This is a good point. There are definitely limitations to the currently available software. And, there are questions as to whether open source development will be the most cost effective model for getting some features.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

Too simplistic. You always pay for development, the question is only what portion you get allocated. Open source and software companies are simply two different means of aggregating the resources of many users in order to produce software the users need. The users always pay for development one way or another. Purchased software has the development cost in the license fees, open source software has the development costs in the support contract, the hardware purchase, the programmer on staff, or whatever other means you can think of. The question is which gets you the most productivity for your dollar.


It was too simplistic, I'll agree with you. The best example of this is setting up an enterprise reporting engine. You will need "programmers" to get it running. Someone to code the reports and keep the system maintained. There is not one open source reporting engine that can come close to this, though. Same goes with search engines, and Content Management Systems. Those 3 are one of the biggest expenses in enterprise infastructure.

All software can potentially die, closed source or open source. The advantage of open source is because the source is available, if you can afford it, some one will maintain it for you. This should theoretically work for closed source software as well, but other factors come in that can push the cost above what an OSS support contract might cost. One of those factors is competition.

If a proprietary company goes under, it files for bankruptcy and it's assetts are auctioned off. Including IP. Nothing is stopping you, or another company, from buying it.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

The difference is, after initial development, you have capital from sales to support service agreements.

Where did the money for initial development come from??? I think we agree without knowing it. The state of Postgres, Inc. right now doesn't give it a chance at providing Oracle, Inc. level support. I am just saying that this has little to do with open source vs closed source aside from the issue of VCs described below.

Where as offering shitty support for free, while building capital, then offering it after your people are adequately trained, works. That's the major difference between a closed-source startup and an open-source startup.

No, the major difference is that with closed source the initial investment goes to making the software. In open source the initial investment goes towards training the support staff. I have no idea whether the difficulty of convincing a VC to make an initial investment that gets used to train and pay support staff vs getting a VC to provide initial investment to pay programmers to create a closed source product is different. But, is this problem really an Open Source problem, or a VC problem?

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

No, but someone is going to. With millions of people using the software, it's almost a statistical certainty.

Millions.. of .. people. What are these millions that you are speaking of? A million people using Postgres, or one function that contains rogue code? You know why you are more likely to see rogue code in open source, than in a proprietary system that is purchased? Legal Liability. Even though a EULA will state they are not responsible for damages, if there is proven negligability in application security leading to data loss, they are still liable and any judge will rule that.

God, you are a moron. That lawsuite is a pathetic joke. No-one anywhere takes that bullshit seriously. It is difficult to comprehend why SCO has made such stupid movies, but that seems to be their history. The only possible explanation is that they want to be bought out by IBM -- more enterprise-level extortion. That lawsuite won't be posing any problems for anyone anywhere. It's a fine example of where some secretary should have just read the thing and said, "That's fucking bullshit," and thrown it in the trash.

Just because the lawsuit isn't going anywhere meaningful, it is still going to court. It's an inconvenience over licensing issues. What's the matter, can't back up your statement? Didn't think so. License disputes happen when two parties get together to work, in some regard. I guess in your under-developed mind it only matters if someone wins billions of dollars, or something.

Typical short-sighted thoughts of those in the industry thinking maybe 5 years ahead. In the long-run, it would be cheaper for companies needing a service like Oracle to band together and jointly pay for the development of such, as opposed to everyone paying Oracle continuously.

Ok, so they pay to create a competeting database and then who owns the copyrights? What if someone wants to take parts of that code in another proprietary application? What happens after? A new company is formed to handle support that bills out to the original companies? It's not short-sighted, it's realistic thinking. In your world, the trees must be purple and the sky sings songs all night long.

Paying an external company for this software necessarily means they're (everyone who's paying for it cummulatively) paying for more than it costed to develop it, which means they're getting fucked over, compared to if they'd banded together and jointly funded it's production.

Oh, ok! So as long as they band together and keep the same agenda they all will be fine. Except who then pays for support? Who pays the support peoples salaries? What happens when someone opens up a competing support-house that slaughters what the original companies do causing huge losses in revenue and showing the original work was a waste of money because they don't get any subsidized revenue off of support?

I'm actually inclined to think that you just don't think.

Regarding the limiations of FS/OSS: yep, that's exactly why we need to continue using FS/OSS and not be tempted into using proprietary software. So that people feel the need to develop these solutions, because they need to use them.

In case you failed to look around in the real world, people need these systems now. Not in 5 years. Not in 10 years. Now. Don't worry, by the time you graduate high school I'm sure a lot of the open source alternatives will be ready. When is that, another 10 years?

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

No, the major difference is that with closed source the initial investment goes to making the software. In open source the initial investment goes towards training the support staff. I have no idea whether the difficulty of convincing a VC to make an initial investment that gets used to train and pay support staff vs getting a VC to provide initial investment to pay programmers to create a closed source product is different. But, is this problem really an Open Source problem, or a VC problem?

I can tell you with much certainty, but not 100% that trying to secure VC for something like this would be a pipe dream. VC firms aren't going to look at the burn-rate for how long it takes to get the product done, and the expected revenues from support and laugh. Now that VC firms are back to somewhat sane organizations, they don't throw money at anything with .com in the name. Convincing a VC now will involve a 5 year plan, expected revenues that better be much more than the initial investment by the end of the next business year. If you aren't going to turn a good revenue within 12 months, your chances of getting VC are slim.

I've personally found it better to just work on it on your own, going slowly, and get the system ready then get micro-loans or talk to Angel investors who aren't worried about quick return. If you can find a early-retired CEO who wants to sink his teeth into something part time and has a few hundred thousand to blow, you are a very lucky person.

I'm still trying to fund my start-up, and it's a huge undertaking. I talked with several VC firms, and after refusing to take it to a quick revenue path, get rejected. I have two tangible goods ideas that I'm going to try to get into the market to get money (How ironic is that, easier to build a device and market it than it is to start a freaking software company?)

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

If a proprietary company goes under, it files for bankruptcy and it's assetts are auctioned off. Including IP. Nothing is stopping you, or another company, from buying it.

I was thinking more along the lines of a company saying, "I don't want to support this anymore because it isn't worth it." I am sure there is a price where they will support it, but that price could be prohibitive because of resource choices that company makes. i.e. I get a ROI of 60% by spending that money on this product, therefore if I am going to use that money to support you I want a 60% ROI, making the cost prohibitive.

Not really a big deal since trying to get some one to support something that is abandoned but the source available may not be as costly, but still may be prohibitive.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

I was thinking more along the lines of a company saying, "I don't want to support this anymore because it isn't worth it." I am sure there is a price where they will support it, but that price could be prohibitive because of resource choices that company makes. i.e. I get a ROI of 60% by spending that money on this product, therefore if I am going to use that money to support you I want a 60% ROI, making the cost prohibitive.

When systems are auctioned off at liquidation, usually they only have one or two customers anyway. Sometimes their previous customers will form a cooperative agreement and buy it together, and then fork development and support. Usually no one wants to buy it, though. If it was in hot demand, they wouldn't have gone out of business :)

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

I can tell you with much certainty, but not 100% that trying to secure VC for something like this would be a pipe dream. VC firms aren't going to look at the burn-rate for how long it takes to get the product done, and the expected revenues from support and laugh.

I think you typed this a little quick. So, I will try to reinterpret. You are saying that VC's would laugh at getting an investment to develop a product as Open Source, then profit from support would laugh. I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of providing large scale support for an already mostly developed open source product such as the example of Postgres we have been using. So, the initial investment would be to get through training, and get the first few support/consulting contracts.

And, my mistake I was also using the term VC incorrectly to encompass Angel investors as well.

(How ironic is that, easier to build a device and market it than it is to start a freaking software company?)

Well, in terms of Open Source business models I think the customization, support, and development of applications to run with all that database, application server, web server, and other infrastructure is the way to go.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

Content Management Systems

Just wanted to disagree with you on this one point. I think Content Management is where an open source solution could happen, or possibly a closed source solution on top of open source software. A lot of the pieces already exist, but need to be assembled into a useable framework.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

I think you typed this a little quick. So, I will try to reinterpret. You are saying that VC's would laugh at getting an investment to develop a product as Open Source, then profit from support would laugh. I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of providing large scale support for an already mostly developed open source product such as the example of Postgres we have been using. So, the initial investment would be to get through training, and get the first few support/consulting contracts.

Yeah, I typed it quick. Friday Idiocy is setting in :) If you could take a package, like Apache, that is already in production, and form a real support setup that has software additions and consultants to provide on-site installation you could probably get some level of funding. It'd be hard to pull off, but you could.

And, my mistake I was also using the term VC incorrectly to encompass Angel investors as well.

When I started playing with investors, I learned they are very different. VC firms will setup your company, help appoint CEOs, meet with you to make sure you aren't doing something really fucking dumb. Angel Investors are mostly just guys who got lucky, or worked in the field for a long time, who are trying to find something "fun." It's kind of like SCORE, except with money :)

Well, in terms of Open Source business models I think the customization, support, and development of applications to run with all that database, application server, web server, and other infrastructure is the way to go.

It is the way to go, but a lot of work goes into it. You have to find several people willing to work for free in the hopes of in 6 months to a year, work for themselves. That's the problem that I run into a lot. Stock options are great to sign them in, but in 6 months if the project isn't finished, they bail because they don't feel they have a commitment. I've had bad luck with a lot of people I try to bring on board. Even if I buy hardware for them, and such. I'm not a CEO though, and I don't want to be. I know more about business than I would ever want to, just because I want to have my own firm. Pain in the ass, I tell ya. But, I think it will be worth it.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Xerithane]

Just wanted to disagree with you on this one point. I think Content Management is where an open source solution could happen, or possibly a closed source solution on top of open source software. A lot of the pieces already exist, but need to be assembled into a useable framework.

They still (in the current moment) would require a lot of development effort to get it to that point. All the different pieces are there, but that doesn't mean it works. I mean, I could build about 5 computers from the parts I have in my closet. It doesn't mean I have a 5 node cluster :)

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Dastardly]

They still (in the current moment) would require a lot of development effort to get it to that point. All the different pieces are there, but that doesn't mean it works. I mean, I could build about 5 computers from the parts I have in my closet. It doesn't mean I have a 5 node cluster :)

Absolutely correct, but a lot of the trick to getting an Open Source project started is the ability to get something that sort of works out there. And, if the pieces exist it doesn't take as much effort to get an initial release together. Although this situation woudl require all open source.

That is one factor that can prevent certain projects from being Open Source. If a project requires many man months to get something that compiles and does something useful into the world, then it is difficult to get developers and keep them motivated. Generally, this requires some corporate backing to pay people to get things to the point where an Open Source project can take over. This is part of the reason there are so many stagnant open source projects (see sourceforge) they never got to the point of releasing something that was compiled and did somethign useful.

Dastardly

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[kruelio]

I don't use my XP machines for services, so none of them ever have uptime more than 24 hours at a time, but it's rare I'll need to reboot an XP machine.

i don't use my linux box for "services" either but my linux box currently has an uptime of 74 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes.

so why are you having to reboot your XP machines? because you changed a setting, installed a program, or had a crash, that's why.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these companies, a Fortune 500 is based entirely on .Net now. Their budget is fine.

I dearly hope you are well paid for that astroturfing. Not even Microsoft is entirely on .NET.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[schlach]

That amounts to $100 million in tech support paid to Gateway by home-users. They damn well better care about the quality of tech support they're giving to home-users.

Just wanted to offer that Dell's (and, I presume, Gateway's) margins are so thin that one call to tech-support eliminates their profit. They're pretty much betting the farm that most people won't call.

No, I don't have any sources. I heard it from two people who used to work PSS whose opinions about these matters I generally trust well enough to repeat...

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[hkmwbz]

"Microsoft could kill Linux tomorrow simply by dropping their prices."

This is a strange claim. Care to explain why you think this is possible? What do you mean by "kill"?

You can't kill Linux by underpricing it. Even if Microsoft did drop prices and most people switched over, there would still be a rather large group of hardcore Linux users that would never switch, because they are already perfectly happy. These people would continue to develop Linux, even though they aren't getting paid, and the result is one of two:

1. Microsoft lowers Linux market share and turns prices back up. People start switching back to Linux again, and Microsoft have lost a lot of money for nothing.
2. Microsoft keeps prices low but loses a lot of money because of this, which is a bad thing for them

Microsoft is in a situation where they cannot win. They are up against people who use Linux and who would never switch, and some/most of them will continue work on Linux even if it dropped in popularity.

Then there's the people who would never use Microsoft products for political reasons.

Your claim just doesn't make sense.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[dh003i]

So what? That's their fucking problem. To me, $300 dollars is a lot of money to pay -- especially for crap technical support with mindless zombies on the other end reading from a cookbook. This is fraudulent advertising here. If they're going to do that, they should just say, "if you want real tech-support, it'll cost you $1000...otherwise, search our web-page".

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[Zordak]

We're not a Microsoft shop, but I do know of certain insurance packages available for data integrity. Whether they are actually based by Microsoft or implementation houses, they exist.

Then why not use those to refute assertions that Microsoft doesn't have real support instead of invoking Sun and Oracle?

He was comparing his Gateway support, and that's ok, but I can't compare Sun to open source? Riight. If you are going to be an open source zealot, you have to take into account that Microsoft is not the only providor of proprietary systems.

Hmmm, here I was just being snide and I stirred up a whole big debate. That's enough to make my day!

By the way, I am not an open-source zealot. I think that OSS is the answer for some things, and not the answer for other things. I'm not about to give up Matlab for Octave, and I'm not about to give up OrCad for writing my own net lists in raw Berkley Spice, but open source does have a place (for example, as snazzy as OrCad's user interface is, the modeling engine is basically just Spice, which is licensed BSD style). If I need a critical Enterprise Database, I'm not going to use MySql, but if I need a web server, Apache is as good as anything. I like Solaris, but it is much, much better with the GNU utilities. All said, there are a lot of good OSS apps, and there are a lot of apps that are not OSS that beat the pants off of the OSS wannabes. However, I honestly cannot think of a Microsoft program that I really, really like except maybe Visio. Some of their stuff is okay, but when the other guy said that Microsoft support is not what Ballmer made it out to be, and you responded with examples of Oracle and Sun, I had to say something.

Re:Steve shares nose surgeon with Michael Jackson?

[WNight]

Many large companies don't want open source. They want support, they want assurance, they want compliance with existing standards.

All of which are benefits of open source.

Support is available. Some for free, but if you want enterprise support you pay for it. But it'll still be cheaper than the service contracts you pay for now.

You want assurance? You can't beat the assurance you get from being able to hire a consultant to come and fix your problems. Every now and then someone talks about how MS actually did pay attention and write a fix in less than a day. With your own coders that's how it always is. Make a call, get a patch.

Compliance with existing standards? There's no profit motive for open source developers to break compatibility in the first place. Intentionally non-standard formats, like MS uses, are the result of a policy of forcing upgrades and breaking competitor's import routines.

Pick an open source package and get the code. Spend some time (or pay someone to) find someone related to the project (one of the peripheral developers) who is available for on-call consulting with regards to it. You'll spend about as much as you would to call tech support at an existing company but you'll go straight to someone with the skills and approval to make real changes, and they're working for you. Even if everyone else drops the project it'll never be end-of-lifed. You'll never be stuck because of security holes that the company won't fix (Office 97) which force you into an expensive upgrade you don't need or want.

Then there's cost. Get away from proprietary software and you per-seat cost becomes that of the hardware and a small incremental cost for support. Consider rolling out application servers and thin clients. A $300 PC is a great thin-client, no local hardware except a CD-RW, mouse, keyboard, and monitor. Buy a $3k server and you're running office apps for 20 - 40 people at once, for a total cost of less than a third of your old hardware budget alone.

You want assurance? Here's one. If a company completely controls your software and your access to fixes for that software, they are *not* going to be benevolent. They'll guess how much they think you can afford and they'll charge you that much. Their site licenses will disclaim all damages caused by the software, even due to negligence on their part. You sue them and they'll spend more than your whole corporate budget on a legal team. There's your assurance.

I don't trust MS software anymore.

[tcd004]

I've had it with microsoft. These days I only buy my software/hardware from Jesus.

tcd004

Unlikely

[inertia187]

I'd be very impressed if Microsoft actually came out with a command-line only version. The fact that "it's a very tangled subsystem" makes me wonder how possible that would be.

I could see a version of Windows shipping without the GUI enabled, allowing administration only by remote desktop. But for the entire OS to ship with no GUI libraries would be very unlikely.

On the other hand, they've already done it (sort of), look at the .NET CLI. But if they shipped an OS based on just the CLI, it couldn't very well be called "Windows," now could it?

Mirrors:

com.com link
zdnet.co.uk link

Re:Unlikely

[WatertonMan]

Even if the entire OS shipped with no GUI, how much of the software you want would work with it?

Re:Unlikely

[lseltzer]

Mod-U-Up

Exactly on-point. Almost nothing would work with it. And what's the point anyway? THere's no value proposition.

Re:Unlikely

[EasyTarget]

Even if the entire OS shipped with no GUI, how much of the software you want would work with it?

It's a server platform.. Work it out.

Re:Unlikely

[binaryDigit]

On the other hand, they've already done it (sort of), look at the .NET CLI

Uhh, in .NET, CLI stands for "Common Language Infrastructure", NOT "command line interface". Two totally unrelated concepts.

Re:Unlikely

[Surak]

I'd be very impressed if Microsoft actually came out with a command-line only version. The fact that "it's a very tangled subsystem" makes me wonder how possible that would be.

They did already. It's called Microsoft LAN Manager. ;)

Re:Unlikely

[binaryDigit]

Even if the entire OS shipped with no GUI, how much of the software you want would work with it?

If it's a server than LOTS of stuff. IIS, SQLServer, MSMQ, etc works just fine without a gui attached to the app. We're not talking desktop here.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe, you're too nice. I would've just called him a retard and been on my merry way.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, and your point is? Besides, I wouldn't say they're unrelated. Without a GUI, applications written for .NET CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) would only work on the CLI (command line interface), unless you built up new GUI libraries.

My point is that it's a safe place to start because there's nothing inherently insecure about it, I'm assuming.

Back off man, I'm a Java programmer. :P

Re:Unlikely

[the_consumer]

Maybe this is what cygwin is for ;)

Re:Unlikely

[SuiteSisterMary]

And with most of the 2000 era stuff, the GUI simply attaches through RPC or straight sockets to the server; this is why you can run the admin stuff on your 2000 desktop and admin all your servers remotely.

Re:Unlikely

[slide-rule]

But if they shipped an OS based on just the CLI, it couldn't very well be called "Windows," now could it?

Of course not. I mean... they testified in court that Internet Explorer is critically integrated into Windows, and any idiot knows that IE is a GUI app. Surely they weren't lying in court or anything. ;-)

Re:Unlikely

[c0ol]

Wouldnt this remove windows only real "feature" over the unix enviroment? Having a CLI windows would make too "user unfriendly" especially for the l33t MSCEs

Re:Unlikely

[RoLi]

It's a server platform.. Work it out.

Yes! Work it out!

Imagine you were one of the few unfortunate running IIS/Windows.

Now you have 2 choices: Learning a new CLI, pay up big, accept vendor lock-in and run Windows2003 or learn a new CLI, pay much less and be able to choose from many vendors and supporters.

Now what are you going to do?

Re:Unlikely

[1010011010]

Nah, the "gui-less" windows will just start up the GUI, and then plaster a full-screen console window over it. The GUI runs in the kernel, after all. Check off another item for marketing!

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely that he meant, "How many of the 3rd party server packages you'd want to run actually have feasible CLI commands with which you can administer the product?"

Of course, if you'd have thought about his question you wouldn't have gotten modded up for your idiotic response.

Re:Unlikely

[c0ol]

who modded this kid up, 99% of windows "server programs" use a GUI.

Re:Unlikely

[GuidoJ]

Hmmm, I happen to have a machine that runs an OS without a GUI. Among other stuff, it runs sshd, apache, squid and mysql. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even have a monitor attached.

Re:Unlikely

[WatertonMan]

Just to clarify my question a little more. (It wasn't intended as a funny retort nor a troll, just a sincere question) While Win2K and the like offered many services, it also seemed like Perl, Python and the like *weren't* services. While running those under various Unixes isn't a problem unless accessing some application that requires a window manager, I wonder if the same is true under Windows.

Does anyone know?

That the basic services are "faceless" I already knew. However many people run quite a bit in addition to those faceless applications.

Also do the remote administration tools (which I've never used, given the nature of my prior IT job) still implicitly require a GUI running natively? (Once again, sincere question - although clearly MS could work a way to avoid that)

Most particulary, even if you didn't *need* the GUI, why remove it? It doesn't hurt anything. I typically have XWindows on all Linux boxes I run, even if I almost always administer them via ssh. It is for that "just in case" and that sometimes webflow requires some software that uses X11. (Although I'm sure were I to look into it such software could be installed without it - but typically the hassle isn't worth it)

Re:Unlikely

[A_Non_Moose]

I could see a version of Windows shipping without the GUI enabled

Never happen because:
It would be equivalent to DOS for NT ...ooooorrrr...

DOSN'T (pronounced: doesn't)...

and I have a feeling it will live up to its name.

heh.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Java is a very well formed scripting language.

Almost as nice as a real language.

Nearly as lovable as Python.

but you should be using...

-- C++ Troll

Re:Unlikely

[BigBadBri]

Printing, for example, requires all the graphics subsystems because we have the "what you see is what you get" model. You need to have the whole of the display stuff to render it. It's a very tangled subsystem.

wtf???

Can't they mod some of the Terminal Server code so that a virtual GUI is running as a terminal to handle all this tangled shit?

Geez - these guys have the creativity of a Jackson Pollock!

Re:Unlikely

[inertia187]

Great. The GUI is still there, tangled and all, you just can't see it. The point is to get rid of it all together, not hide it.

Re:Unlikely

[Ben Hutchings]

There is a Recovery Console in NT that can run before the GUI has started; I think that's a full CLI. Also you can get a CLI by telnet or ssh (though there's no ssh server shipped with Windows).

I think NT is probably modular enough that you can strip out actual rendering of windows, but it would probably be necessary to keep the window messaging around as that's an important form of IPC. There are window-less builds of WinCE (e.g. AutoPC) and they still have window messaging. The problem is not so much the core OS as the many administration tools that would need to get CLI counterparts. I wonder whether there's enough demand for it to be worth MS's while.

Re:Unlikely

[Ben Hutchings]

While Win2K and the like offered many services, it also seemed like Perl, Python and the like *weren't* services.

Why would you want Perl or Python to be a service? Services are like daemons. You can start other non-GUI processes from them if you want, and you can certainly run a Python program as a service.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression from the article is that their idea of a command-line only version may amount to hiding the GUI from the user while leaving most of the code for it in.

Re:Unlikely

[Unregistered]

that would be pretty cool. I don't have a kb, mouse or monitor hooked up to my winbox and use vnc exclusively. Though the main thing i use it for is IE (testing pages) and Kazaa (have winbox, will save cpu cycles) which still need a gui. However, if you could run gajmes direct form a CLI that would be awesome.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

>> a command-line only version.

> They did already.

That link does _not_ show a 'command line only' program. It shows a 'text mode user interface' (TUI) that functions like a GUI.

innovation.

[Unknown Poltroon]

So, this command line server, let me guess, the name will be MicroSoft Disk On Server V1.2?

Re:innovation.

[Blaine Hilton]

With the current numbering system probably more like MSDOS 2004...

Re:innovation.

[ebacon]

No, its going to be called Universal Networking, and be available in 2009. To distinguish it from their other software offerings, the last 2 digits of the release year will be represented in roman numerals ...

Re:innovation.

[Kevin Stevens]

Also remember, that the command line died two years ago. Microsoft had a big party for it and everything. I guess its buried next to the floppy disk, printers ( paperless office), serial port, parallel port, tape backup systems, and mainframes.

Re:innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Extremely clever. Made me laugh out loud.

In case no one caught that, Universal Networking IX.
In other words, UNIX.

Re:innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then SCO would sue them for the trademark violation.

Re:innovation.

[Cutriss]

Moron...SCO has no trademark right to UNIX. SCO owns IP rights to some parts of the former UNIX subsystem. Before that IP got sold to Novell, the prior corporation donated the UNIX trademark.

Re:innovation.

[SirCodeAlot]

That's funny My Windows machine has a command line, used quite often. Matter of fact name a windows without a command line.

Re:innovation.

[freeky_yoda]

It shall henceforth be called 'CommandOS' and every military in the world will have to pay royalties on the use of the term because we all know the the USPTO will have to trouble rubber stamping 'APPROVED' on the trademark for Micro$haft. If the world militaries refuse to pay then M$ will unleash it's army of Giant BILLZILLA's and take over the world.

=======================
Life is not a rehearsal

Re:innovation.

[ipfwadm]

That's funny My Windows machine has a command line, used quite often. Matter of fact name a windows without a command line.

Neither Windows 2000 nor Windows XP have a command line that's accessibly without booting the entire OS, graphics and all. Windows 9x allowed you to hit F8 at boot and bypass all that crap, and just go straight to a command prompt. DOS let you hit F5 and skip autoexec.bat processing (the fact that MS changed F5 in Win9x to boot into safe mode never ceased to piss me off). Linux lets you boot into single user mode without loading all its daemons (and w/out loading X, if you happen to default to runlevel 5). Besides, the CLI Windows 2000/XP offers you once you've finally booted the OS and logged in is worthless.

Re:innovation.

[Kj0n]

I guess its buried next to the floppy disk, printers ( paperless office), serial port, parallel port, tape backup systems, and mainframes.

Don't forget the paperclip (e.g; a paperclip-less office).

Re:innovation.

[someguy42]

They buried it right next to Apple and BSD too.

Re:innovation.

[aphor]

No, no no no... When Ballmer says "innovation" it means what we think of as "taking credit for other people's pioneering work." So, I think what he's taking about is a stripped-down FreeBSD box running a DOTNET interpereter for non-GUI DOTNET stuff so they can sell grid-node servers and embedded servers because WINCE has no potential for small embedded devices, and Sun's J2EE will embarass them for it.

Re:innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it's better than the command.com one from DOS.

Re:innovation.

[MattCohn.com]

Close, but more likely it'll be MSDOS 2005 because it'll most likely ship around '07

Re:innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Windows 2000 nor Windows XP have a command line that's accessibly without booting the entire OS, graphics and all.

There are two problems with this statement.

First is the recovery console, which is a command line interface that you can start without booting the entire OS. It's not terribly useful for anything but recovery, but that's irrelevant.

Second is the fact that DOS was, in fact, an extemely minimal OS by itself. You had to boot the whole thing up to get a command line. This became a little less accurate when bundled with Win9x, which used DOS as a bootloader.

the CLI Windows 2000/XP offers you once you've finally booted the OS and logged in is worthless.

It's almost as powerful as sh... Have you used it, or are you only familiar with the Win9x CLI?

True, it's missing a few utilities that Unix has, but UnxUtils fixes that. (and they aren't part of the Unix shells either...)

Re:innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also remember, that the command line died two years ago.

Uh, no... they were constantly killing DOS, not the command line.

If BSD died, would that be the end of sh?

He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Elpacoloco]

I quote Mr. Balmer:

" Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition."

So just because the basic design is old, it's not "innovative?" I think this guy needs to spend more time with his programmers!

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

"basic design"...linux is a "direct rip" of unix. it shares a HELL of a lot more than basic design principles. duh.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Elderly Isaac]

You mean kinda like how Windows is a clone of the 20 year-old Mac? Sure, a lot has changed since then, but a lot has changed in Linux too.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[L7_]

x86 architecture is brand new!

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[WindBourne]

Actually, other than the GUI, it is based heavily on the VMS architechure with huge influence (and growing) from Unix.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[mattbee]

If we're going to use a OS derived from the 1970s, let's at least pick our favourite and be grateful Linus wasn't a VMS fan :-)

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[b0r1s]

Let's be completely fair here.

Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

The only I can think of is Mosix. The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[oldmildog]

Right. Aren't we still using the same basic design of the airplane and the automobile and the cheese steak sandwich? There are improvements layered on, but the underlying design is still there.

It's not a bad thing to go back to the drawing board every so often and ask if there's a better way to do it. But be willing to accept No as an answer, instead of starting over for the sake of starting over.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Surak]

I quote Mr. Balmer:

" Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition."

So just because the basic design is old, it's not "innovative?" I think this guy needs to spend more time with his programmers!

Hmmm...Windows 2003 is based on Windows XP, which is based on Windows 2000, which is based on Windows NT, which came out in 1993 (?) That's 10 years old, except, wait! The internals of Windows NT are based on VMS! Which makes Windows 2003 a clone of at least a 20 year old OS!

BTW--Linux is not a clone of the original 20 year-old OS. It's a MODERN Unix clone. It's based on POSIX standards which is actually quite a bit newer.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[sigep_ohio]

yes and Steve blo-Jobs got his inspiration from Xerox. Most /. readers should all know this story already. Mac is not as innovative with respect to the GUI as they claim. And saying Winblows is a cheap knock-off is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Elderly Isaac]

100% true. But it just goes to show you that the same useless platitudes Ballmer spews forth can be easily used against his own product.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[mikeee]

I've been wearing pants for more than 20 years, but I don't think my customers would appreciate if I decided to innovate in that area.

A chess master once told me: "Never neglect the obvious. Usually it's obvious because it's right."

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[cje]

Ballmer shoots himself in the foot so badly with this argument that it's not even funny. The reason why some of the underlying design of Linux (and several other operating systems) is 20 years old is because it works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've been using round wheels on vehicles now for thousands of years; if Microsoft came up with a square wheel tomorrow, all of the platitudes and slick marketing campaigns in the world would not change the basic fact that "newer" does not mean "better."

Ballmer is (apparently) suggesting that it is preferable to throw away stable, dependable, and well-established technologies in favor of the latest unproven flash-in-the-pan offerings from the think tank at Redmond. Well, no thanks, Steve. All too often, we've seen what can happen when one goes down that road.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Elderly Isaac]

I don't agree with this link 100%, but I like to play devil's advocate. It's not totally accurate to call the Mac a ripoff of Xerox, just as it's not totally accurate to call Windows a ripoff of the Mac.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[techstar25]

So that they are developing a command line based version, MS will be cloning an operating system that is 20-plus years old.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely... NT is a clone of VMS. Commander Ballmar sure spins things in a biased manner, don't he?

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[sigep_ohio]

That was kinda my point. Part of the innovation in each product is that they borrowed certain ideas form each other, but incorporated them(along with new ideas) in their own unique way.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[inerte]

Knoppix. Truly awesome stuff.

I've packed a demo of our web systems into a customized Knoppix distro and sent to dozens of potential clients. Start computer with the CD, press enter and BUM you are fully testing our work, including dynamic content (from databases).

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[johnnyb]

"Mac is not as innovative with respect to the GUI as they claim."

Yes they are. It is true that the research wasn't their own, but if you look at the comparison between the research system and the original MacOS, well, there really isn't a comparison. On the other hand, Microsoft still hasn't reached MacOS's usability. It _is_ a cheap knock-off.

Let's do a real comparison. Compare the _original_ MacOS to Xerox's system. I think it's pretty obvious that MacOS was very innovative, even if they didn't originate the ideas.

Now, let's compare Windows 1.0 to MacOS (whatever version it was at then). In this case YES, it was a cheap knock-off.

When you put out a better product than what's out there, that's innovation. Putting out a lesser product than what's out there and choking off the supply channels of your competitor is not.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[tempestdata]

That completely depends on which industry you're in. ;)

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[johnnyb]

The problem with talking about _LINUX_ innovation is that Linux is just a kernel. When talking about Linux innovation, KDE and GNOME don't even count, because they aren't part of Linux - they are add-ons.

Now if you are talking about free software innovations, well, you've got the entire Internet infrastructure. You've got GUILE, which is really cool. Emacs, which is amazing. Anyway, I could go on if I had the time, but you get the point.

Of course there's a general problem of determining the "newness" or "innovativeness" of an idea, but that's another topic...

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[binaryDigit]

That's 10 years old, except, wait! The internals of Windows NT are based on VMS

NT is NOT "based" on VMS. David Cutler lead the design of both and they are sure to share similarities because of it, but one is not BASED on the other and to say that NT is some "clone" of VMS is flat wrong.

BTW--Linux is not a clone of the original 20 year-old OS. It's a MODERN Unix clone. It's based on POSIX standards which is actually quite a bit newer.

But to choose to stop your own logic with this one. POSIX is based on trying to unite SystemV with BSD! Not only that but POSIX itself was started up around 1985, still almost 20 years ago.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

A chess master once told me: "Never neglect the obvious. Usually it's obvious because it's right."

or: "When you hear hoof beats, don't think 'zebras!'" (I guess unless you live in Africa, or a zoo, I guess.)

-bch

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[rgmoore]

A lot of the innovation in Linux is under the hood, rather than in an obvious application. It's very impressive, for instance, that the Linux kernel can support- and support well- systems ranging from old 386 machines and handheld organizers to IBM mainframes and 64 processor NUMA boxes. Or that the NPTL lets Linux start and stop 100,000 simultaneous threads in 2 seconds. Those aren't "Gee Wow!" things that will make an average desktop user sit up an cheer, but they're very impressive technical accomplishments and since, AFAIK, no other system can manage those things it makes them quite innovative.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Caoch93]

Uh...what about the O(1) scheduler? I think I read on KernelTrap that soon you'll be able to hotswap schedulers at runtime, too. What about the anticipatory I/O scheduler?

I'm not certain, so correct me if I'm wrong. Are none of these things innovative?

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

User Mode Linux. A port of the linux kernel to its own system call API. Run a linux kernel and an entire linux OS as an ordinary user-space process. I think this one is defeintely a linux first.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

X. I'm sure the trolls will come out from under the bridge, but the fact remains: X's machine-portable, OS-portable networked window system with a narrow, powerful API and pluggable client-side look-and-feel is so far ahead of the MS alternative as to make it look silly.

Whining about GUI/application issues here gets you no points: there is absolutely nothing about the MS GUI that cannot be implemented atop X, if anyone were in the mood to do so (cf wxWindows).

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[LX.onesizebigger]

To be completely fair, you should ask the same thing about Microsofts products. Right now I can think of a freaking annoying paperclip, randomly arbitrarily disappearing menu items, the infinite meta-security-update (the update to the patch to the service release to the security fix to the upgrade to the whatnot), the 5000-slide wizard with one dumb-ass question (that doesn't make sense out of context and seen without the associated questions) on each slide, the RIAA alliance, the everything-is-prefixed-with-"My" paradigm, the idea of torturing users with the most hideous colors known to mankind, and the refusal to run programs not personally approved by Bill the Overlord. Granted, that's a lot of innovation.

I am unsure of whether to credit Redmond with treating customers like morons as the foundation of your product. I am sure Newscorp thought of this one first.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Malcontent]

I suspect that you simply don't want to see innovations so you don't. Let me point out a few examples.

Does Zope contain any innovations? You bet your ass it does.

Does postgres contain innovations? Of course it does if you don't believe me look up the chapters on user defined operators and loadable stored procedure languages. Postgres Rule system is so innovative MS grafted something like it into SQL server 2000.

Is the fact that mysql has multiple table types that can be extended innovative? Sure it is.

Is knoppix innovative?

Are mozilla tabs innovative? They are to me. In fact mozilla is chuck full of innovation like XUL and XP-COM.

I won't even go into nessus, apt, iptables, freenet, hibernate, cocoon, eMule, apache2, logrotate, or a hundred other applications that are stunning examples of innovative thinking.

In fact your typical debian install has more innovation in it then any windows ever had.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

...and several of the kernel programmers that worked on NT were also the kernel coders for VMS.

Oh yeah, and Microsoft licensed a significant amount of VM code from DEC. You forgot that too.

Oh, and also he never said NT was a clone of VMS, so you didn't need to put that in quotes.

BTW, we're forgetting about the inherited parts/characteristics of DOS that have made it all the way to the most current Windows OS families. Let's see, and MS-DOS was based on QDOS, which was based on DR's CP/M, which was in turn, roughly based on various characteristics from OS/8, RSTS, RSX-11, and the TOPS-10 OS (all from DEC). Now, OS/8 was originally PS/8, which dates back to 1965 (or earlier, if you count development).

POSIX standards didn't actually go into effect until about 1990.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[TopShelf]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

While that statement might make sense, it throws a real cog into the software vendor's (not just MS) business model. How else to prop up the top line than come out with a "New & Improved!" version every year or two? Support revenues don't cut it..

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Daniel Dvorkin]

To be fair, it's not just Ballmer who thinks this way. I remember having a discussion a while ago with a guy who was expressing dismay that "all the programming techniques everyone uses now are based on stuff that was done in the late Seventies." He seemed mortally offended that, given the way the computing world has changed in the last twenty-five years, we're not all using new! different! innovative! paradigm-breaking! data structures and algorithms to program our shiny new toys. The idea that maybe the late Seventies were when programming became essentially a mature art -- IMO the vast majority of innovations since then have been in applications, not underlying techniques -- seemed utterly foreign to him.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[puppetluva]

enough with excuses, dude, CHANGE YOUR PANTS.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

really, the writer of the parent post is either completely ignorant of the subject (not to mention the computer industry as a whole as she implies that microsoft "innovates") or is just trolling.

to imply that linux (or even applications running on linux!!) is uninnovative surely shows a lack of even looking on her part.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Are mozilla tabs innovative? They are to me. In fact mozilla is chuck full of innovation like XUL and XP-COM.

Mozilla tabs are just a fucking MDI interface, any dumbass has been able to write an MDI app in MFC for the past ten years. MDI sucked in 1995, and it still sucks now.

XUL is a neat piece of technology, I'll give you that, but utterly useless. It just perpetuates the stupid every-app-has-its-own-look-and-feel mentality. Crap.

XP-COM is a *blatent* ripoff of Microsoft's COM, which has been around for years. That's actually a good thing, but hardly innovative.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Wine / Winex.

Getting MS apps to run on a completely unproprietary system is a rather large achievement.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, NT was a combination of VMS and OS/2 technology. Either way, its design goes back at least 20 years.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Enry]

NT is NOT "based" on VMS. David Cutler lead the design of both and they are sure to share similarities because of it, but one is not BASED on the other and to say that NT is some "clone" of VMS is flat wrong.

I would bet that if you had a VMS guru and UNIX guru sit down in front of an NT box for the first time, the VMS guru would feel more at home.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[g4dget]

NT is NOT "based" on VMS. David Cutler lead the design of both and they are sure to share similarities because of it, but one is not BASED on the other and to say that NT is some "clone" of VMS is flat wrong.

NT is "based on" VMS in roughly the same way that Linux is "based on" UNIX: each share a philosophy and feel with their ancestor, but they are actually completely different pieces of software.

But to choose to stop your own logic with this one. POSIX is based on trying to unite SystemV with BSD! Not only that but POSIX itself was started up around 1985, still almost 20 years ago.

The difference is that the people who originally designed the UNIX APIs really did a great job and that their design still holds up after 30 years. Microsoft and Apple throw out their stuff every few years and start over. That's not "innovation", it's just "doing a poor job". And, what do you know, each time they throw things out and start over, they get closer to UNIX.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[pmz]

The only I can think of is Mosix. The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).

Open Source deserves a lot of credit.

KDE and GNOME have additional forms of network-awareness built into them at low levels that aren't present in Windows, CDE, etc. Mozilla allows pretty fine-grained control over cookies, JavaScript, and images (small but extremely useful features), and it is actually standards-compliant, for once. Emacs is pretty darn innovative for its time (Lisp engine and rediculous extensibility). Ghostscript is the only way I know to print PostScript under Windows to cheap printers. Is there a better EPS plot generator than GnuPlot? LaTeX and DocBook are basically the only options for large-scale structured document authoring that allow true version control, output to who knows how many formats, awesome mathematics support (LaTeX, at least), among lots of other things. OpenOffice.org will level the playing field for office software. OpenBSD is the most secure OS I know of. The most popular HPC clustering software is open source (Beowulf, anyone?). Apache+mod_basically_anything. I'd bet NetBSD literally runs on a toaster, somewhere. Open Source will figure out package management, eventually, Microsoft won't. The best TCP/IP stacks are open source. PERL/Python/Ruby. CVS-over-SSH allows distributed development of proprietary software. gzip/bzip. tcp_wrappers. gcc (languages X platforms).

Some of what I list are significant refinements rather than true innovation, but the fact that many best-in-class applications exist in Open Source form is undeniable. There are hundreds of other innovations/refinements that I can't remember or am unaware of (a lot of them get taken for granted).

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[VP]

Not only that but POSIX itself was started up around 1985, still almost 20 years ago.

Windows NT was also started up around 1985...

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[ZenShadow]

I've worked on VAXen running VMS, from v5 through v7. NT is *nothing* like VMS, at least from an interface point of view (and I'm talking API, not actual user interface). The deep internals may be different, who knows.

--ZS

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[LadyLucky]

I once heard that Windows users liked windows because it wasn't 20 years old, and Unix users like Unix because it is 20 years old.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[revery]

No. You shove off. (sorry, MST3000, "Red Cuba" reference)
to be completely fair, you need to take a second look at what he said...

Ballmer was saying Linux is not innovative, because Linux is based on a 20 year old operating system (i.e. Unix).

Linux is an implementation of Unix, so what Mr. Ballmer was saying is that Unix is not an innovative platform as opposed to MS Windows.

I'd challenge you to find a MS Windows "innovation" that didn't come from somewhere else, and that some flavor of Unix didn't have first. (Oh, and no hardware innovations, software only)

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[N1KO]

Just take a look at the different window managers/desktop environments... some are clones (windowmaker), some are heavily based on other uis (gnome/kde), but some are very original (fluxbox, treewm, enlightenment, ratpoison, ion, papuawm).

Irssi (an irc client) is very innovative imo. I've never used any irc client that is as easy to customize. AFAIK it's also the first to use perl as a scripting language instead of having its own strange language like other irc clients do.

The various package management systems seem innovative to me (except for those based on bsd's ports of course). I've found its much easier to install software using debian's apt or gentoo's emerge than using the installation programs for windows apps.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a cheesesteak :(

Stupid people outside of Pennsylvania have no fucking clue how to make one.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[ipfwadm]

Mozilla tabs are just a fucking MDI interface, any dumbass has been able to write an MDI app in MFC for the past ten years. MDI sucked in 1995, and it still sucks now.

Tabbed browsing is, as far as I'm concerned, the most important ease-of-use enhancement in the history of web browsers. I cringe when I have to use my gf's computer to browse the web, since she only has IE. I hate having 14 windows open all over the desktop, and another 44 popup ads underneath.

Just because any dumbass COULD have done it does not negate the fact that no dumbass HAD done it (well, perhaps SOMEONE had in one of the less popular browsers, and kudos to them if they had, but IE certainly didn't have it -- though I guarantee tabs will show up in IE soon). The same could be said about just about every invention: any dumbass could have come up with it. In hindsight, the technology behind the telephone, the phonograph, the airplane, the internal combustion engine, are all no-brainers. That doesn't make their invention any less innovative or revolutionary.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[ChannelX]

NT is NOT "based" on VMS. David Cutler lead the design of both and they are sure to share similarities because of it, but one is not BASED on the other and to say that NT is some "clone" of VMS is flat wrong.

Mark Russinovich's article doesn't seem to agree with you. According to that article they are *very* close. No...not clones but they apparently share a lot of similarities.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[binner1]

The difference is that the people who originally designed the UNIX APIs really did a great job and that their design still holds up after 30 years. Microsoft and Apple throw out their stuff every few years and start over.

Could this be the difference between people crafting systems for research/scientific purposes vs. corps crafting them for money? Really, if you think about it, the best of the best has always come from the research arena (academia, coporate research [including MS]), whereas crap like Windows has come from pushing things out the door too quickly. I'm not saying that Windows is totally void of any technical merit, I'm just commenting on the relative longevity and beauty of the design principles...

-Ben

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[TheViffer]

If it isn't broke, dont fix it!

Maybe that is why we are seeing Windows making dramatic changes year to year, and Linux continues to revolve and improve around a 20-year old design.

But what I don't get is that if we are so old, then why is Linux in general getting sued for using SCO's cutting edge technology?

Think about it.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[error0x100]

The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).

Are you sure? Let me ask you this. Which of these desktops supported skins first, Windows or KDE/Gnome? (Linux window managers supported skins before Windows even supported a gradient effect in the window titlebar). Which supported thumbnails views in the file manager first? Which 'virtualized' the file system in the file manager first? There are plenty of things that Microsoft has been lagging behind in (they were already far behind Mac when Windows 1.0 was released, and they've always been behind, e.g. it took them over 10 years just to copy the Mac's trash-can).

Microsoft added multi-user logon and built-in remote access capabilities to Windows XP. Linux/UNIX had these years ago. Who is playing catch-up?

Actually, the way I see it is, both are playing catch-up with each other, just in different areas. Linux has generally been playing catch-up with regard to user experience, while Microsoft has generally been playing catch-up with regard to networking and multi-user capabilities.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Keeper]

But there is one important difference.

Linux strives to be like Unix. When you speak of a Linux, you're thinking about a unix-like operating system.

Windows does not strive to be like VMS. When you talk about windows, you arn't thinking about VMS.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of operating systems had O(1) schedulers before Linux even existed. In fact, the O(n) scheduler in Linux was the exception...

The anticipatory I/O scheduler is a bit more interesting, possibly even unique, but still far from rocket science.

But then again, there isn't much innovation outside the open source world, either; most of computer science has been well known for decades. Low-level improvements are just refinements of what we already know and understand.

Innovations are more about how the underlying technology is used - sadly, end-user applications can more easily be called innovative than anything that would even apply to an operating system kernel.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[greed]

NT is NOT "based" on VMS. David Cutler lead the design of both and they are sure to share similarities because of it, but one is not BASED on the other and to say that NT is some "clone" of VMS is flat wrong.

Don't forget the OS/2 history in NT. And I don't just mean the execution support for OS/2 1.2 libraries. Take a look at the kernel APIs, and compare them with OS/2--someone went through with a HUGE search-and-replace to change all the names in OS/2's "Control Program" library. (In OS/2, all those routines started with Dos... Can you see OS/2's history here?) The other change was to return a value and have the error status returned by a function (GetLastError or something, it's been 4 years); OS/2 returned the error and the API result was in a by-reference argument.

There's a reason why there wasn't an NT 1 or an NT 2... and why OS/2 Warp 3 and Warp 4 have internal versions of 2.3 and 2.4.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[glenebob]

The API you're (I assume) talking about is the Win32 interface. That has nothing to do with VMS, and little to do with NT for that matter. It is an expanded-improved-slightly-cleaner version of Win16 (which evolved from the pile of steaming poo that was Windows 1.0) that acts as a translation layer between Win32 apps and the NT kernel. I don't know the first thing about VMS, but I'd bet that if you look at the kernel interface, you'll start to see the similarity. The bits I've seen of it look nothing at all even close to the Win32 interface.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[null-sRc]

unless ur a jigallo... :|

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[mla_anderson]

NT is NOT "based" on VMS.

Sure. The first time I saw NT booting I recognized the VMS roots. NT is solidly based on VMS, or at least the good parts are.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[ZenShadow]

The "kernel interface" is internal for the purposes of this discussion. As a Windows NT application or driver programmer, it's something one does not see.

Internally, yes, I'm sure that whotsisface used a lot of concepts from VMS. That happens when you're a programmer -- you stick with what works.

--ZS

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if you are talking about free software innovations, well, you've got the entire Internet infrastructure.

Can't we agree on how we type free according to it's different meanings (maybe "Free" for OS and "free" as in beer), if you mean free as in beer then I am sure there is a US government budget somewhere that doesn't agree with you.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD jails have existed longer than UML.

There are mechanisms built into jail such that each mail in the system can have its own kernel running (on top of its own userland tools, which is the general use for the jail).

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[c0ol]

lol, linux shares a standard API(POSIX), with an original code base.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[XO]

Bzzt. Wrong answer :)

Win32 API is based on OS/2's API.

MS and IBM were developing OS/2 "together"... and if i remember the story correctly (i might not), MS didn't like that IBM wanted OS/2 to run specifically on their hardware.. so they parted ways...

If you had Microsoft Windows NT 3.50, and formatted a floppy without installing the boot sector and OS data to it, then tried to boot that floppy, you'd get a "OS/2!!! SYS0205" error (not quite sure if it was 0205, but a similar error number) which corresponds to OS/2's "This is not a bootable disk" error message.. lol

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[sheldon]

It's all because of that DIR command, isn't it?

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[nEoN nOoDlE]

A chess master once told me: "Never neglect the obvious. Usually it's obvious because it's right."

Yeah, but the Zapp Brannigan once said "In the game of chess, you should never let your opponent see your pieces!"

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Caoch93]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. ;) As far as "innovative" and how it applies more to use and applications, perhaps innovation is like beauty...best left in the eye of the beholder.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

FreeBSD jails have existed longer than UML.

There are mechanisms built into jail such that each mail in the system can have its own kernel running (on top of its own userland tools, which is the general use for the jail)

I use FreeBSD jails more than I use UML. They are not even remotely the same. UML is a kernel image running as a user space process. Jails are chroot on stereroids. Root's power in a jail with respect to the kernel is severely reduced. A process running in a jail (even as root) cannot change network interface settings, change sysctl variables, mount filesystems, open raw sockets, escape from the chroot and it can only send IP packets from a certain IP address specified at the time the jail is created and many other things.

And a jail does not have its own kernel running. It shares that of the host system with the above mentioned restrictions. A jailed process is just like any other on the host system, it just has extra restrictions applied to it that not even root can break.

I personally prefer jail for running services and keeping them isolated for security reasons. It has a lot less overhead than doing the same with UML. They can both be used for this purpose, but no, they are not the same at all implementation wise. I have never seen anything like UML before, it is definitely totally different than jail.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Zone Cuba

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Edward Scissorhands]

I thought the "everything-is-prefixed-with-my" paradigm came from Perl.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Mr Smidge]

Or at least turn them inside-out.. Another 20 years more good use there?

Unless of course, they're your permanent asbestos pants.. in which case you would probably find it rather difficult to turn them inside-out. Hmm, point taken.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

I _wish_ Windows were more like VMS, then it wouldn't be so bloody insecure. Unfortunately, its security model is not.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Twisted Mind]

Windows 2000 and Windows XP support the Remote Desktop Protocol, which does this exactly. Basically Windows GDI-API are sent over the net.

I can login from any other computer at my own Windows XP computer and applications don't 'notice' any difference.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[dpt]

Let's be completely fair here.

Yes, let's. There is no innovation whatsoever coming from Microsoft, but Ballmer conveniently neglects to mention that.

Unless you consider "fixing our own stupid mistakes" to be "innovation". Or perhaps, "clippy the paper clip"?

Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

Please name one feature of Windows that is innovative. Or any MS product, for that matter.

The only I can think of is Mosix. The other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).

Sigh. Microsoft has been trying to catch up to Unix for years. Directories, disk caching, TCP/IP, a decent file system, and so on ad infinitum. When they *finally* catch up, it might even be usable/stable/secure/scalable etc - but it will also be indistinguishable from Unix.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Trogre]

Tabbed browsing.
I feel severely limited when forced to use a browser without it.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla tabs are just a fucking MDI interface

There's a subtil difference, but since Mozilla stole the idea from Opera, it irrelevant anyway.

MDI sucked in 1995, and it still sucks now.

What really sucks is being stuck with SDI when you've got 20 windows open with the same application.

We need is a nice combination, so you can group or ungroup windows whenever you want.

It just perpetuates the stupid every-app-has-its-own-look-and-feel mentality.

I hate that... If it weren't for skins that matched the system's default look it would be unbearable.

Microsoft's COM ... actually a good thing....

Except for that fatal flaw...

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[g4dget]

Could this be the difference between people crafting systems for research/scientific purposes vs. corps crafting them for money?

Oh, I very much think so. And, in fact, it is profitable not to get it "right": it gets you to market faster and it lets you sell upgrades later.

Good technology and good business often don't align at all. That's just a fact about market economies. You can't blame any individual company for putting out bad products if it makes them money. Microsoft, for example, is behaving rationally. If there is blame to be placed at all, it's with customers, who end up supporting bad products by making uninformed and short-sighted choices.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[gad_zuki!]

>Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

Tough question, the desktop model of computing was concieved of in the 50's and in the 60's there were working demonstrations with mice, cut-and-paste, word processing, etc.

Innovation is now just a business buzzword like proactive or synergy. For a short time I worked for a company whose full name was Proactive Inc/Synergy. Innovation is what you say to the jury when you're going to ream an industry.

I have a pretty modern computer, but here I am at a keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc attached to a loud beige box. Why doesn't it integrate with my TV/Entertainment center. Why can't I just tell it to do something or have it read me my email in the bathroom? Why isn't it on wheels roaming around the apartment?

I'll be screaming "innovation" from the mountaintops when someone produces something other than the further tweaking of the 50 year old desktop model. In the meantime its a code-word to appease those in the know like "family values" or "tough on drugs."

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[revery]

Thanks, wasn't sure of the whole name...

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[binner1]

Well put.

-Ben

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of these desktops supported skins first, Windows or KDE/Gnome

Correct answer is a beta version of MacOS 8.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way Ballmer himself says "Remember, we brought Windows 1 out in 1983..." in the article. That would be 20 years right there, plus more for the various things it was cloned off. The fact that XP, etc. are based on the NT kernel does change things a bit, but as you point out, it still abouts to a 20+ year clone.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Unregistered]

wayV. It gives you full system mouse gestures. It's the coolest thing. Nothing like it exists for win32.

X11. remote desktop appeared on *NIX way before MS. While most people dont' use it it's still innovative.

Mouse gestures in browsers and tabbed browsing. Pretty simple, but most prople actually use this.

WMs like E (especially .17) or *box. Very functional minimalist environs.

gaim. possibly the biggest killer app for linux. If not innovative it's sure well done.

xdirectfb. True transparency. Win32 hasn't even dreamed of this yet.

well, that's all the innovation i have open atm.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE, GNOME

GNOME and KDE may be trying to "catch up" to Windows as you say, but Windows is still trying to catch up to MacOS! As for MacOS, well, even they had to "catch up" to Xerox PARC.

kernel

Again, Solaris/BSD (as you put it) are still trying to "catch up" to UNIX.

Mozilla

Now, this is where you are just plain wrong. You see, go back a couple of years. No, further than that. Somewhere around the time that Netscape was released. Where was IE then? Microsoft has been trying to catch up ever since, and let me add that Mozilla stems from Netscape's source base (Mozilla was the codename for Netscape), so all in all I'd say Microsoft has a lot of "catching up" to do.

Face it, there is nothing new under the sun. The only reason Microsoft is even bothering to try to catch up is that they have to, otherwise they will drown.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[binaryDigit]

Take a look at the kernel APIs, and compare them with OS/2--someone went through with a HUGE search-and-replace to change all the names in OS/2's "Control Program" library.

NT's and OS/2's api's are actually quite different, and certainly nothing as close as simply doing a search and replace. There is certainly similarities given their heritage. The OS/2 api's are more like a significantly cleaner and better thought out Win32 api (which it actually is). Just as an example, though they both offer threads and semaphores, they handle them in different ways.

(In OS/2, all those routines started with Dos... Can you see OS/2's history here?)

I hope you're not referring to the Dos prefix being linked to DOS as in MS-DOS, because if you are, then that would be incorrect. The Dos prefix simply meant that those routines are related to Disk Operating System calls and have nothing to do with DOS. Just as the Win calls have nothing to do with Windows the operating system, but the generic concept of windowing.

There's a reason why there wasn't an NT 1 or an NT 2... and why OS/2 Warp 3 and Warp 4 have internal versions of 2.3 and 2.4

Well the reason why there wasn't an NT1 or 2 is because Microsoft wanted to keep the Windows numbering consistant. Notice that there also was not an NT 3.0, it started with 3.1, which was the currently shipping version of Windows at the time. Microsoft then switched the 16bit Windows over to the year names (Windows 95) but kept the numbering on NT until Windows 2000. As for OS/2, I understood the reason for the internal numbers to be that 1.x was 16bit OS/2 and 2.x was the 32bit. That's why the OS/2 versions went from 2.0, 2.1, Warp 3, Warp 4. Also, don't forget that _NT_ was supposed to be OS/2 3.0 before the rift.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the laugh.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately what's unimpressive is that while you're running your 64 proc NUMA box when you run out of memory Linux may choose to kill a process that's very important to you. That's not innovative, that's just stupid. Who cares about how quickly threads start and stop if your applications can't run reliably?

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an old one, but,

Q: What's the difference between VMS and PMS??

A: People with PMS don't wish they were eunuchs....

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[jez9999]

Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

I think a far more appropriate question is: Is it _necessary_ to constantly be 'innovative'?

Linux is already a f*cking good OS, it doesn't NEED constant new innovations. True innovation happens slowly, in spurts, not all the time. Most Microsoft 'innovation' == pure bloat.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[WindBourne]

Actually, Linux quit following Unix long ago. That is why it is not fully posix complient and we do not run CDE/OpenView. Instead, the Linux world/OSS is more of a platform with chasing new thoughts/ideas. That is why Linux/BSD is the platform for web serving, super computers, micro embedded computers, etc.
Personally, I think that MS should consider the idea of returning back to more of its VMS roots.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[SmittyTheBold]

What's worse, it it's got something similar to the VMS architecture underneath, with dozens of DOS-era limitations underneath. Filenaming, disk mounting, directory length limitations, and that's only at the FS level. Look around, there are many other areas where the obligatory backwards-compatibility limits Windows in ways the base architecture would not let on.

Re:He has a funny idea of "Innovation."

[Keeper]

I didn't say it was following unix, or unix standars, but that it's goal is to be "like" unix. Linux IS a unix *variant*. To say that it isn't is silly. If I sit down at the machine, I get a unix shell. I run ps and get a list of process running on the system. I run cat and get the contents of a file flashing by on the screen. If I run X I get a funky gui system.

Whereas Windows is most definately NOT a VMS system. VMS may have been written by the guy who did the core of NT, but it sure wasn't the design goal of the system.

Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[neurostar]

Open source is based on the very principles of communism...

But the biggest difference is that Linus isn't going to send you to N. Finland and have Alan Cox shoot you if you whine on /. about your latest/greatest kernel patch...

;)

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[np_geek]

Not to be picky, but Alan Cox lives in Wales these days, I believe and I don't think the Europeans are very fond of guns anyway...

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[neurostar]

Yeah, I know. It just didn't sound right sending them to wales to be shot... Ya know - Siberia, cold and all that. Wales is a little *too* hospitable. ;)
I was kinda going for the Stalin-type theme.

neurostar

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Skyshadow]

But the biggest difference is that Linus isn't going to send you to N. Finland and have Alan Cox shoot you if you whine on /. about your latest/greatest kernel patch...

Exactly. Firearms are 100% ESR's domain.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Usquebaugh]

"Wales is a little *too* hospitable"

Spoken like someone who has never been to Pontypridd.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Anonymous Coward]

...partly because alan cox isn't in N. Finland

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[neurostar]

Correct, I haven't been there... But I'd imagine that it's more hospitable than Siberia.

neurostar

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[10Ghz]

I don't think the Europeans are very fond of guns anyway...

There are plenty of guns in Finland

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Textbook Error]

But I'd imagine that it's more hospitable than Siberia.

Spoken like someone who has never been to Pontypridd.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[np_geek]

Yeah, I got it. I was feeling smart-assed this morning. That has passed now and I'm back to dumb-assed again and feel much better.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Ponty]

"Remove wrapper, open mouth, insert muffin, eat." -- Instructions on the packaging for a muffin at a 7-11.

I know it's offtopic, but please tell me that that's true!

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[00_NOP]

Linus isn't going to send you to N. Finland and have Alan Cox shoot you

In Soviet Russia Linus sends you...

Well, you get the idea.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[jovlinger]

perhaps it's time to build that inside-out house with the padded walls... on the outside?

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why he said principles...the practice of communism is always worse than the theory. =)

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[Findel]

Or Swansea for that matter, which is where Alan Cox is from.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[RDohnert]

" So when it comes to development models, you're claiming the edge?
If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'"

I know that statement is bullshit because I used to work for IBM and IBM has a team that does nothing but work on the linux kernel and administer and distribute patches and security fixes. They also have a seperate team that works on AIX and security issues. Whil in Microsoft, if you need an extensive patch done, the response is " wait until the next version, or service pack " Thats the beautiful thing about Open Source, IBM can write the fixes and if they are significant, outside of a controlled environment, they release it to kernel.org

" But why do you think people are adopting Linux? Is it because they can look at the code? Is it because they don't have to go through an 80-page licensing agreement?
No. There are some scenarios where people consider it. People don't really consider Linux much on the client--that's my market observation. On the server side, you have people who have skill sets and applications on Sun that they want to move now to Intel hardware to save costs. I think we have a pretty good story, but I tell you, game's on. We've got to prove ourselves, and some people are choosing Linux. I don't think that is going to continue to be the case. "

What another load of crap, In my current position and on my own freelance consulting jobs, I find many people who are considering and implementing Linux as the client. I for one offer different suggestions on what Applications that the customer can implement to achieve their goals, and my customers have been on Linux for awhile now with no problems or complaints.

" On the desktop, in developing countries, computer dealers will tell you that they sell Linux-based PCs, but in a lot of these places, Windows only costs $1 in the street.
A Linux PC in most countries is a PC in which somebody is being encouraged to pirate Windows. We conducted some surveys about this in one large Asian country, where we found that, of all PCs that didn't have Windows installed on them when they were sold, 99 percent wound up with Windows on them within 30 days. "

Maybe through VMWare or Win4lin, but going back to my IBM experience. The asian clients I worked with that had implemented Linux, all ran Linux, some VMWares installed, Some Win4Lins installed but they only ran them until a viable solution for the Application they needed came to pass or until they ported the Application over to Linux, in-house apps mostly. But now I see more CrossOver Office implementations more than VMWare or Win4Lin. As for consumers, In Asia 99.9% of the Windows installations are pirated so I dont know how they would even keep track of how many Windows users there are. So I doubt that 99% is accurate. I think they need to actually do some research before spouting ridiculous numbers.

I think MS needs to get a clue and realize they are in trouble if they keep dismissing Linux, one day Linux will dismiss them. Everyday Linux gets better and better, and in terms of technical design, has surpassed Microsoft Windows along time ago. More and More Apps are coming and more and more desktop Linux users and Enterprise Linux users are starting to come into the light Linux might not knock Windows out of the #1 slot for some time but, It will have a larger marketshare than the Mac has ever had, and it will be much more successful than UNIX ever was on the desktop.

Re:Linus Doesn't Shoot...

[polarbear169]

I agree. Ballmer seemed like the Iraqi Information Minister in this article, "No! There are no troops in Iraq! We killed them all! Open source will die a thousand deaths! Our server is best! Bow down!"

More innovation from Microsoft?

[xYoni69x]

He claims that 'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'.

Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

Isn't this a little backwards?

Re:More innovation from Microsoft?

[Joe U]

Yes and no. A CLI server that can be fully administrated by say, an XP box (with a full GUI) is not a bad idea.

It might reduce resources.

Honestly, I don't think it will reduce as much as people think it will, the shell, when logged out and idle pretty much gets paged out and ignored. Granted, there are still some resources being allocated, the question is, how much power does a screen refresh take, what about that login dialog box?

Re:More innovation from Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also note that because of the "very tangled subsystem"s they may have to leave in most of the GUI resources.

Innovation in EULA's and user restrictions

[kaltkalt]

Yep, Microsoft has definitely made advances in way to snatch away the rights of those who use their products. Well done guys! Can't wait for palladium....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So does the Iraqi Information Minister

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no innovation! Innovation is a trick of the west! Linux is 20 years old, and has never been updated. It still runs on floppy disks! Customers need Windows 2003! Saddam blesses Windows 2003! Allah blesses Windows 2003!"

Re:So does the Iraqi Information Minister

[juan2074]

In related news...
The Minister of Information is considering a position with Public Relations at M$. He is still negotiating salary, benefits, and diplomatic immunity.

I wonder why...

[slyckshoes]

They're Microsoft's customers, of course they've seen more innovation from Microsoft. That's because they haven't tried something else. Anytime something starts with "our customers" what follows is not a valid comparison. You need a better sample.

Re:I wonder why...

[bmajik]

yeah, nobody would ever objectively choose a platform that anybody could install, can be set to patch itself, and just works with all the programs they already use. What a dumb idea that would be!

Here's a sample size of one: i used linux. Unless you were running kernel 98 (thats ZERO point 98), I used it before you did. I've written two (trivial) unix-only software packages, and i've got a one line bugfix in the openbsd IDE driver. I've sent bug reports to a few differnet open source projects, and I had Alan cox personally tell me that my VM starvation issue that was crashing my production linux webserver would be fixed in the next release of "buy more ram and leave me alone". I was writing multi-thread programs on unix back before linux had a respectable pthreads implemention. I was making my living on unix machines back when i was still telling people i'd quit if some employer asked me to use an NT machine. Suffice it to say, I've had more than enough exposure to linux, and unix in general.

Now, I choose Windows. Not because I don't know about anything else. Because to me it just wasn't worth fighting with *nix any more to make it do what i wanted to do.. why waste my time if Windows already does it ?

There are lots of companies that try lots of things and decide on windows. If thats hard for you to beleive you should try talking to some of those companies. Be sure to leave your blinders at home.

Re:I wonder why...

[gol64738]

ya, i've noticed that windows caters more to old people, too.

Re:I wonder why...

[slyckshoes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't say anything about Linux being better than Windows or AIX being better than Windows or ______ being better than Windows.

I've worked for large companies that did their development on Solaris, Irix, Linux, and Windows. And I'm currently using Windows because I want to, I could use Linux if I so chose.

My point was simply that the sample wasn't unbiased.

20 years... old or experienced?

[DarkBlackFox]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.

Gee, so 5 years down the road when M$ is integrating open source software to maintain value in the consumer market, I wonder where this guy will be...

That aside, generally don't things get better with age? With more time on the open market, would that not imlpy 20 years of innovation and development? If not, why is it still alive and more popular than ever? Would that explain the relatively small number of security holes and bugs of the 20 year old system, compared to the "modern" Window$ core?

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[mb12036]

I follow you from a security perspective (performance, reliability, etc. also). As a layman though, from the perspective of how we interface with a machine, the rules have not changed much in twenty years. Maybe this is just a GUI gripe...I dunno. But if I'm still doing things at a command line in 20 more years, that will just plain suck. That's why I can't understand why M$ would pick that route to go. If you're going to throw cash at how humans interact with computers, look towards the horizon don't look back towards the way things were.

I agree Linux (and others) have come far in 20 years in many many many many many ways, but much can be said about how far things _haven't_ come in terms of how we interact with the machine.

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[Sir_Stinksalot]

Can't we say the same about windows. I mean have they really removed all of the DOS from the backend? DOS dates back to 81 if I remember correctly. So Linux is a clone of a 20+ year old OS and Windows _IS_ a 20 plus year old OS

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is yes, they really have removed all the backend DOS stuff. Any time you run DOS now, it's emulated.

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[poot_rootbeer]

Gee, so 5 years down the road when M$ is integrating open source software to maintain value in the consumer market

You mean like Berkeley's TCP stack?

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[dcmeserve]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

That's what I'm always thinking about when I'm flying on an airplane -- damnit, this is such an old design! 100 years old! I'd really rather be trusting my life to something much more new and innovative!

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[dcmeserve]

But if I'm still doing things at a command line in 20 more years, that will just plain suck.

If the command line is the same as what we have today, absolutely. But there is something about a command line interface, I think, that is fundamental to the human brain. After all, what is our primary means of interacting with other humans? A linear sequence of symbols -- also known as speech. Phonemes serve as the symbols, in this case. Our brains are *highly* optimized for this -- we can memorize an amazingly large number of arbitrary symbol strings, deal with all sorts of wierd rules of how to put those strings together, etc.

So there's a real reason that the command line hangs on, I think. The main problem with it is that it's largely context-free. But the more modern shells have made progress in this area -- look at tcsh. You can hit the tab key to complete a file or command name, or show a list of the completions available. And in vim, you can hit ctrl-P or ctrl-N to complete a word you're typing, by searching up or down the document for another word that starts with the same letters that you've just typed. It's amazing how useful this is when you get used to having this ability. And why are these things useful? They make use of context.

Think about the voice-interface computers on Star Trek. They are extremely sensitive to context. That's how it knows what the user means when he/she gives a command. But other than that, it's really just a command line interface, only spoken instead of typed.

And typing isn't going to go away either. For one thing, it'd be as annoying as hell if everyone was using a voice interface at my company -- the chatter would be incessant! You know, on Star Trek, there was never more than one person in the room talking to the computer at a time. On the bridge, what were all those officers around the edges of the room doing? They were typing, essentially -- if they were all using voice interface, they'd interfere with each other, and even with the captain's ability to think and make decisions.

As for using a keyboard vs.a GUI, one thing people seem to forget is the fact that a keyboard is a highly parallel interface, whereas the mouse is quite serial -- you only have one mouse pointer on the screen at a time. A lot of the time, you have to position that pointer very carefully (especially on windows), and take care to not move it when you click the button, etc. May not seem like a big deal, but try it with a messed up hand or carpal tunnel. With that, you can really feel how very serialized that interface is. It's so very slow.

With a keyboard, you can reach out and press any button you wish, even multiple buttons at once, in some cases. True, many programs using keyboard interface force you into serialised mode, but then again, you have ctrl keys and F keys and the like -- which can cause the program to jump into doing something completely different. I'd say that games make good use of parallelism on the keyboard too.

So what is my ideal interface? I'm not really sure. A touch screen with a virtual layout of buttons that could change with context (and some kind of tactile feedback for button pushes, and ability to press more than one thing at at time)? Might work, but then again, there's something inherently useful about having a static, physical set of buttons -- our motor neurons work best when they're highly trained for specific tasks. If you had a virtual keyboard that kept changing, it'd be more difficult to be quite as fast with it. You'd basically have to be hunting-and-pecking all the time. You'd be in a tight loop -- looking at the screen for the button to press, then pressing it, then watching to confirm the effects so you can tell where the next button will be to press. That's a very linearizing process, isn't it? Might as well be using a command line.

Ok, I'm done ranting. By the way, here's a reference to that "In the Beginning was the Command Line" article by Neal Stephenson (author of Cryptonomicon). It contains an interesting perspective on the history of the command-line interface (among other things).

Re:20 years... old or experienced?

[Anonymous Coward]

"20 years old" reads, to me, as "stable, tested and proven."

Ballmer's right

[Pentalon]

Ballmer's right -- stability isn't an innovation. Good design isn't an innovation. These are all concepts that existed years ago.

Re:Ballmer's right

[b0r1s]

And to be fair, they have existed in windows since late 1999.

2000 is quite stable; anyone who says otherwise either never tried it, or doesn't know what they're doing.

Re:Ballmer's right

[buggered]

But you forgot Security. "Trusted Computing", now that's innovation at it's best!! (Trusted Debian and OpenBSD haven't innovated at all, they are just copies of 20+ year old technology.).

Re:Ballmer's right

[4of12]

2000 is quite stable; anyone who says otherwise either never tried it, or doesn't know what they're doing.

Dammit, you're going to have to go back to ReEducation Camp for Windows Advocacy!

Yes, yes, you got the part right about Windows 2000 stability being a good thing. Any intelligent person will agree with that assessment.

But we want those people to upgrade to Windows 2003!

If users figure out that Windows 2000 is good enough, then they won't upgrade!

Doh!

They're trying command line only?

[bigberk]

I guess even Microsoft is realizing that for administration purposes, it's not beneficial to hide all settings deep within pretty GUI tabs and dialogs.

Good luck with that experiment, Microsoft. But there's much more to a solid OS than a simply a lack of GUI :)

Re:They're trying command line only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that experiment, Microsoft. But there's much more to a solid OS than a simply a lack of GUI :)

Actually, in Microsoft's case ripping out the GUI probably would make the OS a lot more solid. It would do away with a lot of the holes that crackers exploit along with the cruft that just makes the desktop crash sometimes.

innovation or marketing

[satsuke]

'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'

Perhaps he is commiting the cardinal sin of confusing market share and marketing speak with innovation and creativity.

As has worked for the majority of M$ innovations, they put a pretty gui on things created by others, and leave the real details to registry entries and third party plug ins.

the .net "innovations" seems to have a lot in common with the stuff Novell was doing several years ago with single sign on and single vendor application development etc etc (NDS / Btreave / groupwise / wordperfect suite / ZENworks etc )

Re:innovation or marketing

[crawdad62]

'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'

I guess you really don't have to innovate when things work well from the get-go in open source.

Re:innovation or marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some really nice things coming out of Redmond in the next few years.

Some of these is going to be a technology called 'scale up' and 'scale out'. The technology is quite brilliant: building an infrastructure that allows disks to be reimaged remotely and redeployed as needed. Specifically designed for datacenters and hosting facilities, the concept is that if you have 50 web servers and 20 database servers, and your web load is low, database load high, you can remotely convert one of the 50 web servers into a database server, without ever having to enter the room.

That's one hell of an idea, and the cost requirements will probably prevent this type of product from being written by volunteers (You have to have a way to get control of the system during the reboots, which requires hardware interaction; hardware interaction is difficult to achieve if you don't have the hardware vendor cooperating).

[Posting anonymously due to NDA ambiguities - this tech. was briefly explained while I was in Redmond quite some time ago, although it's also online for public viewing, so it is my understanding that this is now public knowledge]

They aren't necessarily wrong...

[rasafras]

In terms of innovations, Microsoft truly leads (agaist open-source). Microsoft tries to hire people with ideas, for the sole purpose of designing better interfaces and new concepts. I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.

I think this might have to do with the premise of open-source. OSS does not really have profit. It is easy to recreate an existing idea, because you know what you have to do and how. It is far harder to create a new idea and implement it, and your chances of success are far lower. For this reason, paid employees are more likely to try and innovate. I'm not saying Linux doesn't have anything new - just that I haven't really seen anything.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[xchino]

Disagreed, completely and totally. Open Source projects are a labor of love, usually formulated with innovationm in the first place. Take things like UML (User Mode Linux).. that's innocation. Where's the Windows inside Windows security features? When xomeone starts an Open soure app, it's usually because they have an idea what they want a program to do, and nothing currently does it. Being paid doesn't make you more innovative, but being inspired does.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[gregRowe]

Hmm, what about things like mosix? MS Windows is clearly a poor choice for a distributed system. I could be wrong but isn't mosix pretty innovative?

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[rasafras]

Agreed on that point. But will you have the ability to strive all the way through the project, along with other people? You have to admit, it is far easier to write a program when you are copying off of an existing one. It really isn't possible for open-source developers to create a whole new framework such as .NET completely independently. I admit I was somewhat ambigous in my original post, but what I was referring to was entirely new concepts that really haven't been tried before.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[SpaceLifeForm]

Perhaps you haven't seen anything because Linux/GNU does not need it!
Or more likely, it's not visible to you.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[IamTheRealMike]

I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.

Well, that HTTP.SYS thing sounds quite similar to the TUX in kernel web server switch. Innovation? Not sure. Check out Slicker. UI research. Is the GNOME2 "less is more" philosophy innovative? ReiserFS is really doing some cool things with filing systems.

The problem with "innovation" is that it's so badly defined. Everybody operates under a different definition. So, I don't see much coming out of the computing industry as a whole that I'd class as innovative right now. There are things. Just not many.

I don't think you can make arguments about whether open source is more innovative than proprietary software. I believe innovation is a function of the individual. Sure, there are innovative environments, but for every argument I've seen saying "open source isn't innovative" there are plenty of good counter arguments.

For instance, I would disagree totally with the idea that paid employees are more innovative by definition. The corporate environment is focussed on increasing the value of the company for shareholders - if you have no need to justify profit, you can work on all kinds of things that traditionally probably wouldn't get the green light, and who cares if you fail?

There are also examples of MS innovation, I mean, really innovative stuff like some of the IE bookmarking enhancements that MSR produced a few years ago, that simply never got into the main product. The researchers attitude was, "well we send the product team a report, but we don't know if they read them or not" which stunned me. At least with open source, if somebody doesn't want to implement your innovation, you can fork.

So I haven't seen any convincing arguments that open source isn't innovative. The majority of open source probably isn't, but then the majority of stuff is not innovative, that's part of what makes innovation special and prized.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[mahdi13]

I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.

Innovation is more then a pretty theme. Anyone can take a bucket of manure and put some lovely flowers in to make it look nice
The ONE advantage MS has over Open-Source is that MS can hire Artists and other Design Specialists to put the flowers in the bucket of crap.
Open-Source is just started to get the Artists to plant the flowers, but they are planting in a bucket of soft soil that is made for growing.
I'm sure if more programmers were artists, a lot more OSS projects would look more appealing to people

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[malfunct]

Its totally possible to follow through on a complex project in the OSS world, it just doesn't tend to happen. A person that hacks an app because they need a new feature tends to get it working "good enough" and then uses it. If you are lucky they will accept some bug fixes from other people they share the app with but maintenance is usually low on the priority list.

Then step in corporations that want the OSS as a base and don't see a huge loss in releasing thier code and on goes a layer of polish. Or you get a group of people that just hates the alternatives and decides to push through a product with some polish.

Usually the things that people put polish on are in the catch up phase because a number of people/companies need to get competative to an inovative (or just well done as is probably microsofts case lots of the time) product thats already on the market. The truely innovative pieces seem to get to the "good enough" phase and then the orignal author gives up on it and then its up to luck for someone else to pick it up and polish it.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[stratjakt]

UML is based on old mainframe unix concepts that are decades old. It's not new.

It's not innovation, it's derivation.

And it's been so since the very core of the Free software movement (it's GNU's Not Unix, not GNU's Something Completely New and Original)

And generally when people start OS apps, they generally want to replicate some functionality from another OS that doesnt exist for free. (Samba, Apache, proFTPd, KDE, gnome, Mozilla, OpenOffice, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, OpenLDAP, OpenWhatever and so on).

It's a good thing that this stuff is being made free, but call a spade a spade.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Designing better interfaces? If pretty looks = innovation then Britney Spears is the most innovative person on the planet.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[BlueGecko]

I agree with your overall point, but not everything you said. If we are speaking purely about innovation, then I think that open-source can be quite innovative. EROS works towards an orthagonally-persistant server operating system. Squeak is doing a tremendous amount of multimedia work and research on how to make programming literally simple enough for kids. HURD actually does a very nice job improving on the whole idea of Unix, if you study how it would be used in an ideal world. ReiserFS 4 could be a true revolution in file-system design by assigning no penalty to having millions of extremely small files. Although all of these projects leverage existing technologies, all of them want to take those technologies to what, at least in my opinion, are clearly innovative directions. Perhaps they are not always revolutions, but they are certainly radical evolution.

The problem is that there is that the open-source community never quite manages to turn any of these ideas into actual, practical products. Most people haven't heard of EROS or Squeak. HURD sits perpetually half-finished on a horrible microkernel that it should have left years ago, and efforts to move it to L4 have stalled. When ReiserFS gets here, it will likely be years, if ever, before Linux actually takes advantage of its filesystem approach and obsoletes a million text files. Open-source frequently even has trouble matching truly innovative ideas that do make it main-stream elsewhere. There is, as far as I know, no real open-source equivalent to the QuickTime multimedia architecture (not talking about the movie format; I'm talking about the API) (Mac System 7), Quartz (OS X) or QuickDraw GX (Sytem 7.5), OpenDoc (OS/2 Warp), V-Twin content searching (Mac OS 8.1), live queries (BeOS), register-based virtual machines (Tao Group; in open-source defense, Parrot is indeed a register-based virtual machine, although still lightyears behind Tao's 1993 design)... I could go on, but you get the point.

There are, I think, two reasons for these shortcomings. First, open-source seems incredibly forcused on replacing existing solutions. If that's going to be your focus, then you don't have room to be innovative; compatibility is all that matters, and compatibility inherently means that your innovation options are limited. You can't throw out X11, Unix permissions and configuration files, and classic GUI programming if you want to replace a Sun box verbaitim. That requires gusto and the confidence to say, "I'm going to do that very differently, but this way is better." So why doesn't the open-source community do that? Because it's hard to get a large number of developers willing to spend time on something so radical when they don't have any marketing. Getting out a new paradigm is hard. People get set in their ways. Selling someone on the idea that applications are an obsolete metaphor, or that instead of using a database package, they should use the filesystem directly, can take years, and because open-source developers work as a hobby, they figure that if no one will use their idea anyway, there's never any incentive to polish off those innovative ideas to the point where they're usable. Hence a chicken-and-egg problem built into the system. The best you can hope for are minor improvements on existing ideas, ad nauseum.

Open-source can be innovative. It's just implementing those ideas that trips things up.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[bittmann]

In terms of innovations, Microsoft truly leads (agaist open-source). Microsoft tries to hire people with ideas, for the sole purpose of designing better interfaces and new concepts. I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.

Couple of nits:

"Linux" is a product. OSS is an "organization". So your comment, while true in the strictest sense, is kind of apples-and-oranges. Perhaps a better comparison would be Microsoft to OSS?

While Microsoft is pretty good at "innovating" an "experience", much of what Microsoft "Innovates" is a pretty wrapper around what once was OSS (e.g. the BSD-licenced Win 95 TCP/IP stack, the Kerberos implementation, various implementations of sundry Internet-centric protocols, the BSD zlib, etc.), or what once was someone else's purchased proprietary code (e.g. Visio), or even worse, some one else's stolen proprietary code (Stacker, Syn'X/SoftImage). Note that I've only mentioned code that Microsoft has actually USED, not their re-hashing of other successful products (spreadsheets, word processors, personal finance managers, etc.)

So no...maybe Linux doesn't Innovate. But I'm convinced that you can't make the same argument about OSS. And, I'm also convinced that, if the same measure were applied to OSS as to Microsoft, you'd find quite a bit of cross-pollination there...much of which would be OSS giving Microsoft the ability to do what it does today.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

" UML is based on old mainframe unix concepts that are decades old. It's not new."

Prove it. Link to an implementation of UML in a decade old mainframe.

"
And it's been so since the very core of the Free software movement (it's GNU's Not Unix, not GNU's Something Completely New and Original)"

What a blatantly stupid comment. GNU meaning Gnu's not Unix has nothing to do with derivation from Unix on a technical standpoint, only on a philosophical standpoint. The very idea itself was new and innovative anyways, so you're wrong either way.

"And generally when people start OS apps, they generally want to replicate some functionality from another OS that doesnt exist for free. (Samba, Apache, proFTPd, KDE, gnome, Mozilla, OpenOffice, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, OpenLDAP, OpenWhatever and so on)."

What a poor example. First of all, apache existed way before IIS, and there has ALWAYS been a free httpd.proFTPd was designed for easue of use and feature richness, free ftpd's have always existed. They wanted to "innovate" on the idea of an ftpd server, and there are quite of a few features which came about on wu and proftpd that are not part of the FTP standard. KDE and Gnome are simply alternative desktop systems for X. They are both unqiue, but do suffer from trying to be a windows clone. If you're looking for innovation in the desktop area just look at projects like fluxbox (or any *boxes really). Mozilla is just a reincarnation of netscape, it never claimed to be anything new. Open Source browsers have always existed, they wanted a feature rich browser. Both SSL and SSH were free, jsut not open sourced. Also, Open Source != Free Software. Learn to make that distinction.

So you managed to name .001% of Open Source applications, and of that .001% only a minority of the examaples you use have any validity at all. If you're not finding innovation in the Open Source world, you simply aren't looking. The whole "based on concepts from 20 years ago" is ridiculous, becase it's always taken down to the lowest ocmmon denominator. All things are based off of concepts from the past, it's adding new tricks to an an old idea that makes up innovation.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[SubtleNuance]

Disagreed. Unix, is the OS of Research. Of Academia - and GNU/Linux is quickly taking Marketshare from traditional Unices (and MS in Comp.Room && Desktop). When *innovation* (like TCP/IP and the Internet) arrive, it is from Academia (generally). There is not alot of Innovation in the realm of Desktop Apps, mostly refienments of earlier concepts (Excel==Lotus123)... Unix is a collection of many MANY little apps running together, and virtually nothing cant be done in Unix that can be done elsewhere because of its openness; it will continue to be the real bead of innovation.

Ballmer is both wrong and stupid.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been hawking this "innovation" theme since the anti-trust suits started. And yet, I can't think of a single innovative thing Microsoft has ever done? Not one. GUI, nope. Database, nope. Server technology, nope. Applications, nope. Everything they do is an enhancement of something someone else did or a product of a company they bought. Microsoft is about "embrace and extend" not innovation.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is far harder to create a new idea and implement it, and your chances of success are far lower." MOSTLY RIGHT!

"For this reason, paid employees are more likely to try and innovate." TOTALLY WRONG!
When you get paid you have to make money. ;)

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[IamTheRealMike]

For Quicktime, try GStreamer. More advanced than, well, pretty much anything.

For OpenDoc, try KParts or Bonobo (i think opendoc was nicer, but arguably KParts or Bonobo are in wider usage).

Quartz - there isn't really one, and for good reason. It kind of sucks. There were efforts to add Display Postscript type capabilities to X, but they were abandoned after it was realised that the approach was flawed. Xr/Xc seem a better way to achieve the same thing.

I'm not sold on the innovation thing. Innovation is not good per se, you have to balance it with all the other factors. If Linux was a super-whizzy ultra-innovative research OS, not only would it have far fewer apps and users, but Ballmer would just be slamming it for not having compatability with anything. You can't win with guys like this.

Anyway, it was decided right back at the start that usefullness was more important than innovation. That doesn't exclude innovation, but people make a really big deal out of these accusations that they probably shouldn't do.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

UML is "Unified Modeling Language", not "User Mode Linux". Ignorant fuck.

Re:They aren't necessarily wrong...

[fymidos]

Samba, Apache, proFTPd, KDE ...

you are right, it's not innovation. A better word would be perfection of ideas...

But still, i can find no rival for vim, perl, enlightenment, pvm, or even the ability to sftp:// from my file mananer (konqueror) ...

It's ok, you are not the first to confuse innovation with marketing ...

Hooray!

[dswensen]

and this piece about Windows 2003 mentioning that Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

And the best part is, it's so simple to use! It has only one command: "reboot."

Re:Hooray!

[e2d2]

No it's LICENSE. Reboot is automatic.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

And another - 'reinstall'.

Re:Hooray!

[liquidsin]

yup, and to make it even simpler, the command is run at startup.

Re:Hooray!

[Morologous]

In other news, they're changing the name of their command line only server from Windows to Window.

Re:Hooray!

[Exploded Fiber]

To add to your comment: I think it should be reboot and 'please work'.

Re:Hooray!

[Kj0n]

And it is delivered on *ONLY* three DVD's.

A 3 GHz processor, 2GB RAM and a 60GB hard disk are all you need to run it.

Re:Hooray!

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Debian 3.0r1 comes on 6 cds and one update cd, I also have Debian on two dvds, one with binaries and one more with the source.

Mandrake: 3 cds

Redhat: 3 cds

Suse: 1 DVD or 6 CDs

Windows 2003 server comes on 1 cd.

Oh yeah, that Windows is a real HOG!

Please don't bring on stupid arguments about there being 7000 software packages in the linux cds, you are just reinforcing my point that Linux distros have managed to become even more bloated than windows. What a disgrace...

Re:Hooray!

[Elendur]

Well, yes, those distros are available like that, but I can also install Debian off a few floppy disks and have to download maybe 50-100mb to have a complete system the way I need. I think the same is true of the other distributions, but I don't use them.

Re:Hooray!

[yeti (dn)]

What do you compare with what? There's no equivalent of distro in the Windows world. So what?

If you count all the CDs with third party Windows software necessary to make the silly thing basically usable, you get a few dozens...

Interesting..

[EdMcMan]

Ballmer seems to use Linux and Unix interchangeably. (Unix doesn't have a command line?)

Re:Interesting..

[SuiteSisterMary]

No, and neither does Linux. Both, however, have the ability to run shells.

Linux has that too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Command line only server is an option on most linux distributions installation program. It's called the NO X option, lol

It's like they are trying to make a dos server lol!

Oh look, an outright lie too.

[Elpacoloco]

" The way things are structured today, from a licensing perspective, in the Linux world nobody will ever commercialize Linux the way the Sun commercialized FreeBSD."

Forgetting RedHat, Mr. Balmer?

Re:Oh look, an outright lie too.

[jedidiah]

Nevermind Bughat, Balmer is conveniently ignoring IBM.

Re:Oh look, an outright lie too.

[demon]

"commercialized FreeBSD"? What the hell is that moron blathering about now? SunOS 4 was BSD-derived, and it was derived from BSD lineage WAY before FreeBSD happened. Solaris as it exists today is SysV all the way. Sun isn't commercializing FreeBSD.

Someone needs to take away Ballmer's crack pipe. He's fried what little brains he still had.

Re:Oh look, an outright lie too.

[b0r1s]

There's a flaw in the sentence, but it's got nothing to do with RedHat or IBM. It has everything to do with the fact that Solaris/SunOS came well before FreeBSD, even though they're both BSD derived.

Either he's confusing Sun with Apple, or confusing FreeBSD with BSD.

Ingore the FUD, keep coding

[InodoroPereyra]

GNU/Linux went this far (up to a point of being a threaten to the evil empire) by damn good coding. Where do you want to spend the next half our of your spare time, discussing this FUD in /. or coding (bug reporting, writing documentation, etc) for your favorite project ? It's your choice :-)

Re:Ingore the FUD, keep coding

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough. But I'm supposed to be coding closed-source proprietary code at the moment. Windows-only code at that! :P

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Clone

[mojowantshappy]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

Yeah... NT was created about 10 years ago which was a clone of Windows which was created in 1981 and was derived from DOS which was stolen from QDOS.

I hate Balmer.

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr...not quite the truth there...

NT is based on VMS (which is err... how old again ?) in terms of backend - and uses Windoze as front-end

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

The core of NT is based on the ideas from VMS, a 20-plus year old operating system.

Re:Clone

[mojowantshappy]

Oh... well it still works! :)

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite right there....

Sub-system of NT is based on VMS (VMS architect was hired to develop NT).

Front-end is Windoze based tho'

I hate 98, NT and XP. Why ? Because when it inevitably breaks - I can't determine how to fix it - because it hides everything in meaningless, information lacking GUIs. Give me Unix/Linux any day.

Re:Clone

[vasqzr]

Comparing present day Windows 2000/XP to DOS is just plain fucking ridiculous.

Comparing a current Linux distribution to a 1980's UNIX isn't THAT different.

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. NT was created by a completely different team than the Windows group. They were given explicit instructions NOT to re-use windows code. It was even originally written for ALPHA cpu's, so the coders couldn't use any assembly coding tricks. Only later was it then ported to the 386.

Re:Clone

[mojowantshappy]

Do you really think you wouldn't find a huge difference in 1980's UNIX to current Linux distributions when comparing them? Seriously, I would like to hear your arguement, because I've got nothin'.

Re:Clone

[Jord]

Which shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

Just because a modern Linux machine and a 20 year old Unix machine both have a command line interface does not make them the same in any way shape or form.

Hell I can tell what version of VI is on the machine after using it for a couple of minutes without checking the version number.

See in the Unix world, functionally differences are noticed, not just the different colors of the GUI.

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit.

I worked on the team at DEC that was paid to port it too alpha. NT wasn't even written with 64bit in mind.

Re:Clone

[JoeBuck]

The NT kernel is a clone of the DEC VAX/VMS operating system, perpetuating many ideas that first appeared in DEC's RSX-11/M OS. This is no accident; Microsoft hired Dave Cutler, the main architect of VMS, to do NT for them. VMS's virtual memory system predates the first virtual memory Unix (which was done at Berkeley, not by Bell Labs). DOS and CP/M can also trace their roots back to DEC operating systems (particularly to RT-11).

So Microsoft's stuff is quite old as well. They did have good taste as to what they copied, but because they copied from so many sources, they have a ton of cruft.

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as if he doesn't claim Windows 1 came out in 1983 just a few paragraphs down in the interview.

Re:Clone

[T3kno]

I somewhat agree with this, although the *NIX we have today is significantly different from what we had 20 years ago. But that is the fallicy of BalMer$ argument to me. DOS didn't work that well so they cloned a Mac and created Windows, that was ok, but still didn't work that well, especially in the server market. They set their sights on Novell, created a basically new product (stole it from IBM et al) and released NT. They changed it again, tried to add functionality that has been in *NIX for those 20 or so years and there you have Windows 2000 which was NT done right and IMHO the best OS Microsoft has ever created. Then they realized that gaming and multimedia are what the home user wants and crossbred 2000, NT, and 98 and created XP a completely different breed. They tied to create an OS that was everything to everyone, and wound up with an OS that is really good for nothing other than embedding a bunch of DRM and other anti consumer crap. An OS that is not suited to run any task in my opinion.

XP is Microsofts solution to what *NIX already is (I say *NIX because with a little tweaking they for the most part can all do the same things) a robust OS that can be tailored to what ever job you want it to do. XP tries to be tailorable for many different jobs, but it winds up sucking at all of them for the most part.

*NIX is an empty tool box that lets you put what you want in it, XP is the Hammer, Wrench, Pliers, Knife and screwdriver contraption that my wife bought before we got married. Want's to do everything but can do anything.

That to me is why *NIX hasn't changed much in the last 20 or so years, the user space apps have changed, but the core hasn't changed because it was done right the first time and has slowly evolved into what it is now. If I want a desktop machine, Linux with KDE 3.1.1 is better that anything Microsoft has ever offered, same goes for an OpenBSD firewall or web server or a FreeBSD or Solaris database server.

Microsoft tries to reinvent what the OS is to all people every couple of years, creates a marketing driven POS and calls it innovation. *NIX will be around a long long time after Microsoft is just a bad memory. With Balmer navigating the juggernaut that will happen sooner rather than later; I, for one, am not worried.

Re:Clone

[Malcontent]

That's because unix was multi user multi tasking operating system 20 years ago. Unix networking 20 years ago was better then windows networking today. How long did it take for MS to even start using TCP/IP?

It is to Microsofts shame that it took them decades to write a multi tasking operating system and they had to buy citrix to come up with something even resembling multi user. Until windows 2000 windows was a single user operating system!. Imagine that!

Ever use roaming profiles? What kind of a half assed crap is that?

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, I believe much of the early development work on the NT kernel was actually done on the 32-bit MIPS platform, which isn't surprising given that was what DEC was using for most of their workstations prior to developing the Alpha architecture, so the NT kernel team people that came over from DEC would have been intimately familiar with it.

Re:Clone

[jedidiah]

NO, the legacy issues are entirely different. DOS was a quick hack that was largely depending on the quirks of one particular hardware architecture and CPU model. Unix, OTOH, was designed from the beginning to be a more abstract and portable system.

This makes comparing Unix to anything Microsoft COMPLETELY ABSURD when it comes to legacy support issues.

They sit on opposite sides of the engineering spectrum in this regard.

Re:Clone

[pyrrho]

the whole shebang is based on formal logic... which Arisototle codified two thousand years ago!

Don't even get me started on how old the laws of physics are that these machines are based on... good lord, can't they innovate some new properties for the material world... but no... the best they do is base them on newly discovered laws (quantum computers), and even that's getting long in the tool (what, 70 years I guess withought google's help).

Hey kids... The Who is OLDER THAN 30 now.

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

It *aspires* to be half-assed. Gawd, it's awful. Bandwidth-wasting, registry-destroying, start-menu-mangling bullshit, is what it is.

Re:Clone

[2short]

At first I thought you were stretching a bit by sugesting modern Windows is really just DOS, but after thinking about it, I realize you're just not in any touch with reality at all.

"...DOS which was stolen from QDOS"

I usualy think of "stolen" as having a meaning different from "purchased".

Re:Clone

[Anonymous Coward]

"*NIX is an empty tool box that lets you put what you want in it, XP is the Hammer, Wrench, Pliers, Knife and screwdriver contraption that my wife bought before we got married. Want's to do everything but can do anything."

I have a whole tool box of those contraptions, birthday, christmas, and father's day gifts. Now I happen to use woodworking tools that were my grandfather's and he passed on in 1958.
When I want to do quality work, I get the old tools out, when my buddies want to borrow some tools, guess which ones I lend out!

Quality lasts,
percieved innovation creates sales,
planned obsolescence creates repeat sales

Re:Clone

[fymidos]

The worst idea ever, especially on a terminal server, where the same stuff gets copied from home to profiles, and back again, and if you do that on a RAID 1, you actually get the porn videos your users download in 4 (FOUR) places in your hard drives ...

-Sir you have serious problem with out networking stuff, we lose data all the time.
-Ok, let's innovate, let's just copy stuff, and call it something fancy.
-but ...
-BY nine o'clock

"Are you looking at search?"

[burgburgburg]

But for traffic, Yahoo is doing quite well and we are doing quite well.

Gosh, could that be because any not found address put into an IE browser redirects to an MS search page? Could that drive up traffic? Is that innovation? Like Arthur Anderson innovation?

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So anything Microsoft does that you don't like, you're just going to go "THAT'S INNOVATION!" and think you're funny?

Get a hobby, man.

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[phuturephunk]

..No, what he's getting at is the fact that you can't imply that more people are CONSCIOUSLY searching through MSN when the DEFAULT action for IE, the most prolific browser out there, when confronted with a known address, is to redirect to a MICROSOFT run page.. Thats bullshit and you know it. Don't attack the man because he's pointing out the truth..

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[Anonymous Coward]

IE, the most prolific browser out there

LOL

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[fockewulf]

MSN search is powered by Inktomi, which is now a division of Yahoo. I don't think Microsoft has it's own search engine technology.

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[Marlor]

Here's the fulll quote:

If you take a look at search usage today--everybody likes to talk about Google, which is fine. They are doing a good job as a company. But for traffic, Yahoo is doing quite well and we are doing quite well.

So, basically what he's saying is that the success of a search engine can be measured by the amount of traffic it generates. This means that all Google has to do to be successful is add some big-ass animated .gifs and banner ads to their site. If they did this their traffic (bandwidth utilization) would skyrocket, and in Mr Ballmer's opinion, they would suddenly be successful.

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[epukinsk]

MSN web search just plain sucks. I was using a windows box the other day, typed "java api" into the msn search bar because it was there. I figured "that one's easy, msn should be able to handle it."

MSN returns University of Bristol ILRT - Redland RDF Application Framework

The correct answer, which is of course Java 2 Platform SE v1.4.1 and is #1 in google's results[1]. It is #8 in MSN. That was the last time I will ever bother with msn search.

Erik

[1] Well, google gives you 1.3.1, which is pretty much the same thing. That is probably google's biggest fault. When new content comes out, google is only as fast to adapt as the rest of the web is when it comes to updating their links.

Re:"Are you looking at search?"

[phuturephunk]

If I wasn't baked, I'd think of a pretty witty reply to this...

So that's what happened to Lindows!

[herko_cl]

Command-line Windows?
I knew there had to be a reason for the Lindows controversy. Let's see...*Pictures B. Gates thinking hard*
1. Windows-without-Windows? Lame...
2. Non-Windows? Lamer...
3. Disk Operating System? Nah, used that one already.
4. Command-Line Windows? Mmmm... has potential...
5. command Line-Windows?
6. Lindows!
So it's in use? *Picks up phone...*
</tinfoil hat>

What's wrong with using a 20 year old system?

[Dthoma]

"Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system."

If it ain't broke...

Re:What's wrong with using a 20 year old system?

[Xformer]

Exactly. I always thought that the thing people wanted from servers was stability, not innovation.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

Re:What's wrong with using a 20 year old system?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose everyone thought like that? We'd still be driving around in vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, writing with ballpoint pens and using home electronics based on transistors!

Okay, so that's not the best example. Never mind.

Re:What's wrong with using a 20 year old system?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it ain't broke...

... it ain't from Microsoft!

Coming soon! MS NotSoFreeBSD!

[GeorgieBoy]

Annoucing the new Microsoft server OS with a command-line interface! (How hard could it be?)

This is great...

[Anonymous Coward]

...everyone was talking about the Linux commandline. But I've never seen it. Everytime I boot Linux KDE or Gnome appear right in front of me. But NO commandline. So now it takes a real big player in this business to invent this great commandline.. I'm so exited about this great news.. I could crap my pants!

Truth be told

[Alomex]

he is right about the innovation thing... for now. In fact he's simply paraphrasing Rob Pike (of Unix fame):

Linux's success may indeed be the single strongest argument for my thesis: The excitement generated by a clone of a decades-old operating system demonstrates the void that the systems software research community has failed to fill.

Besides, Linux's cleverness is not in the software, but in the development model, hardly a triumph of academic CS (especially software engineering) by any measure.

Indeed, up until very recently the Linux community was busy simply trying to catchup with other Unices.

However, over the last five years or so, Linux has slowly but surely started surpasing other Unices here and there. For example, KDE and GNOME are miles better than any of the commercial vendor unix-GUIs.

So if Ballmer is counting on the lack of Linux innovation thus far to keep Windows ahead, he is in for a surprise.

However at the same time it is important that Linux advocacy groups (such as /.) encourage and foster the environment for the development of an improved Linux. For that we need laundry lists a-la "let's make unix not suck" which Miguel de Icaza put out a long time ago. That is, identify its weakest points (X11, security model, cryptic commands, lack of decent word processing suite) and work on improving them as much as we can.

Re:Truth be told

[Anonymous Coward]

However, over the last five years or so, Linux has slowly but surely started surpasing other Unices here and there. For example, KDE and GNOME are miles better than any of the commercial vendor unix-GUIs.

I'm guessing you've missed all the press on Mac OS X? ;-)

Re:Truth be told

[Alomex]

Touche'

You are absolutely right. I was thinking of the old Unix box makers and forgot completely about the Mac.

Hmmm...

[Azureash]

The timing on this release isn't a coincidence...
It seems Balmer just got back from a stint as the Iraqi Information Minister.

Corporations are not running Open Source software! The Open Source programmers, those bastards, are committing suicide, and we are encouraging them! Their stomachs are roasting in Windows hell!

It's partly true

[aiken_d]

If you compare the 20+ year history of Microsoft to the much younger open source movement, I think it may be fair to say that there's been more technical innovation from Microsoft. Of course, the whole open source model is quite an innovation in and of itself.

The first 5 years or so of Linux were mainly focused on replicating funcationality that already existed in non-free Unix OSes. Likewise with the apps. It's only in the past year or two that we're starting to see a good deal of innovation in the form of apps that aren't just clones of non-open-source apps.

Open source is starting to really move, and we're starting to see some truly novel apps and innovations, but I think it's completely understandable that the first decade or so of open source was devoted to bootstrapping our tech to be equal to or better than closed source stuff.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but they *have* introduced some real innovations. Cheap, shared-SCSI-bus clustering comes to mind, as does Active Directory (although AD is certainly inspired by NDS). While Microsoft certainly followed Apple into the era of the GUI, they've made notable improvements to the GUI. There are others, of course; only the most rabid anti-MS zealot could claim that they've *never* done *anything* innovative.

Of course, it says something about Microsoft's insecurity that Ballmer is playing the "Historically, we've done more than open source." Open source is still snowballing -- if Microsoft had a new closed-source competitor that was starting to gain market share, everyone would laugh at marketing material that said "Historically, we've done more than this new competitor."

Cheers
-b

Re:It's partly true

[bace]

OSS growth is exponential. The more people who find out about it the more people who contribute(no im not saying that all people who find out contribute, im talking about mindshare of young talent). Thus with the gradual uptake of OSS by younger gens the OSS grows while Microsoft has to spend more and more money to fund their software growth.

I think OSS is the snowball rolling down a REALLY long mountain side. Once it hits critical mass, WATCH OUT MSFT. My 2 cents, hope i made sense

Re:It's partly true

[JoeBuck]

What you're missing is that much of what is valuable in Unix was produced by the contributors to BSD, at Berkeley and elsewhere, and this extra code was always licensed under the loosest terms that could be achieved given that, to be useful, a Unix source license was needed. This work was done collaboratively by a community. The community was "gated", true, but in the early days any university CS department could get the Unix source license for a song. So, in that sense, the spirit of the free software / open source community is as old as Unix.

Certainly Microsoft has introduced some innovations, but their real expertise is in borrowing or acquiring ideas from others, and then (after a number of releases where the customers shake out the bugs) coming up with a very clean implementation. And they keep on making incremental improvements when others rest on their laurels: the Apple fans correctly said "Windows 95 = Apple 84", but what they forgot to say was "Apple 95 = Apple 84" (Apple got off their butts since then and have made real progress).

Re:It's partly true

[Kiev()]

AD based on such worthy MS inovations as LDAP and Kerberos

Re:It's partly true

[HeghmoH]

While Microsoft certainly followed Apple into the era of the GUI, they've made notable improvements to the GUI.

Could you point out some of these improvements for me? It might help make my next experience in front of a Windows computer less of a living hell.

Re:It's partly true

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what you are referring to with "Cheap, shared-SCSI-bus clustering comes to mind" but simple failover clusters are way old. I am finding references to Veitas FirstWatch on Usenet in 1994.

Re:It's partly true

[curtisk]

If you compare the 20+ year history of Microsoft to the much younger open source movement, I think it may be fair to say that there's been more technical innovation from Microsoft.

ALERT! Who let this guy in here?

j/k.....good post, I too found it interesting that they( or Ballmer actually) have to quantify themselves in regard to Linux

Re:It's partly true

[iabervon]

Microsoft is actually great at innovations; every release worth the name has totally changed the user experience, and they've put in tons of features that nobody had seen before. Unfortunately, all of those innovations have then turned out to be bad ideas, and people turn them off if possible, or they go away in the next version, replaced by new bad innovations. Linux is based on ideas which have lasted 30 years without anybody managing to come up with anything better, while Windows is based on all of the ideas that people (Microsoft and otherwise) have come up with in those 30 years that were worse. There have been refinements in the Linux world (that don't really show up on the radar), but the fact is that the UNIX design was sound and significant differences from it over the years have proved to be flaws.

Hmm... the first innovation that comes to mind as being Microsoft's own is "Bob". And that damn paperclip. The most recent useful thing I've seen to come out of Microsoft is the DOS mouse driver.

Re:It's partly true

[Malcontent]

What kind of a same person claims that AD is innovation? NDS came first, it's based on LDAP and kerberos. What kind of an innovation is that.

Re:It's partly true

[pesc]

they *have* introduced some real innovations. Cheap, shared-SCSI-bus clustering comes to mind

I don't know everything about what Windows is offering in the clustering department. But the real king of shared disk clusters is VMS. Windows is certainly nowhere near the clustering capabilities of what VMS had ten years ago.

Considering that the NT architect Dave Cutler used to work with VMS, I can suspect that some VMS clustering technologies have been cloned into Windows. Shared SCSI-based clustering is likely one such technology.

And I don't think "cheap" is a Microsoft innovation. That should be attributed to the compatitive hardware industry at large.

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

>> While Microsoft certainly followed Apple into the era of the GUI, they've made notable improvements to the GUI. There are others, of course; only the most rabid anti-MS zealot could claim that they've *never* done *anything* innovative.

What improvements? You mean the Start menu used to Shut down Windows, or the ever annoying Office Clippy whose final removal from Office XP became a feature celebrated with a Flash movie http://www.microsoft.com/Office/clippy/ by its creator, or the beloved Registry.

Microsoft is 60 times bigger than Apple with over $40 billions in the bank, but produces virtually zero innovation. Even more amazingly, a hardware company like Apple actually has a bigger and better software portofolio than MS.

Re:It's partly true

[Anonymous Coward]

"Windows 95 = Apple 84"

Come on there are so many differences such comparisons are ludicrious.

-Premptive multitasking

-Backward compatibility

-Driver signing

-Supporting a diverse number of system configerations and third party components
Internet and Web clients and small scale services

-A radically new 3D programming language as well as support for OpenGL and third party 3D addons that spurred developement and upgrade cycle for consumer 3D

The list goes on but really show me a 1984 Mac OS that had most of those features. As for the MacOS being the same as 1984 I disagree strongly too. There has been a consistant march forward beyond just looks although those have changed too. Gross generalizations are just that.

Re:It's partly true

[archen]

If you compare the 20+ year history of Microsoft to the much younger open source movement, I think it may be fair to say that there's been more technical innovation from Microsoft.

In my opiniont innovation isn't everything. And I would say around a quarter of MS innovations are ass backward approaches. MS SMB for instance. I see Linux growing because it can empower people by giving them the right tools. And the right tool in the hand of the right person is more powerful than a tool which tries to do it the way someone else wants it. A really good cook can still make a good meal using tools that haven't changed much in 100 years. That doesn't mean someone with a microwave is going to cook better because they have something more "innovative".

Re:It's partly true

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger? Are you really sure about that? Windows (how many versions?), IIS, Office (with all the components), VS, the whole .NET thing, and probably plenty of others I have missed. What about apple? The OS's, iApps. Uh, hmm. Anything else?

Re:It's partly true

[spongman]

and both of those are based on bits and bytes.

Re:It's partly true

[UncleDavid]

> You mean the Start menu used to Shut down Windows

As opposed to the init command used to shut down UNIX?

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

Where do you get that silly idea from?

No, you use "shutdown" or "reboot" or "halt" in UNIX.

Re:It's partly true

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Please type init 0 on your *nix box and tell me what happens. Thank you and goodnight.

Re:It's partly true

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me someone who actually shuts their machine down by typing "init 0" and I'll grant you your argument.

Re:It's partly true

[UncleDavid]

And I just went to a command window on my Windows box (I often leave one open) and typed shutdown /s /t 0. Then I had to power up again so I could post this.

I won't bother figuring out if init 0 still works on every version of UNIX.

This is silly anyway.

Re:It's partly true

[Dot.Com.CEO]

It is not an argument. I just made a comment replying to someone saying that you don't use init to shut down a unix box. Well, guess what, you do. You might alias init 0 as shutdown, but hell, it DOES bring the box down to runlevel 0.

When I taught unix basics for some shitty consultants (oh the horrors), using init 0 and init 6 made them understand a bit better the idea of runlevels.

I shut my linux pc - oh excuse me, box - down by typing init 0. What is your point?

Re:It's partly true

[yeti (dn)]

If this was a philosophical debate, I'd call this a stupid reductionism. But this isn't philosophy, so I'll left out the "reductionism"...

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

>> Bigger? Are you really sure about that? Windows (how many versions?), IIS, Office (with all the components), VS, the whole .NET thing, and probably plenty of others I have missed. What about apple? The OS's, iApps. Uh, hmm. Anything else?

Yes, I am pretty sure that there is an Apple counterpart for virtually every MS product, and Apple is usually a few years ahead of MS.

But the opposite is not true. For instance, MS doesn't have any high end software (with prices up to $10,000) for Pro Digital Production, while Apple dominates the market with powerful multi-platform tools: Final Cut Pro for nonlinear video editing, Shake for movie composition, DVD Studio Pro for DVD authoring, and Logic for music production.

Here is an incomplete list of other Apple software products:

Mac OS - first mainstream desktop OS with a legendary GUI; Mac OS X - lickable Aqua GUI with rock solid BSD UNIX and Mach Microkernel; Darwin Open Source - first open source UNIX from a major computer company; Darwin Streaming Server - the only multi-platform open source media server; QuickTime - grandad of media player; Sherlock - access Web services without a browser; Newton OS - first PDA with hand-writing recognition; WebObjects - a cross-platform pioneer of enterprise application server; FileMaker - easy and powerful database solution; AppleWorks - seamlessly integrated office application for word processing, drawing, painting, spreadsheet, database, presentation; Keynote - smaller and better than PowerPoint; Safari - much faster and better looking than IE; iLife (iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes) - free and powerful digital media tools unmatched by MS; Interface Builder and Project Builder - free and first class professional programming tools for developing Carbon / Cocoa / UNIX applications with Java / C / C++ / Objective C / C++; and the list goes on and on.

Further more, there are so many other technologies that are either invented or made popular by Apple: GUI, mouse, laser printer, color display, floppy drive, SCSI drive, color sync, AppleTalk, AppleScript, Dylan, FireWire, USB, AirPort Wireless, rendezvous, Gigabit Ethernet, etc.

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

>> I shut my linux pc - oh excuse me, box - down by typing init 0. What is your point?

The point is that you are using the wrong command for the job, and your Linux box shouldn't allow this, and this is what I get from Mac OS X:

bash-2.05a$ sudo init 0
init: already running

According to the init man page:

"The init program is the last stage of the boot process. It normally runs the automatic reboot sequence as described in reboot(8), and if this succeeds, begins multi-user operation."

In other words, init is NOT supposed to be used on its own on a proper UNIX system. Maybe you should consider switching to Mac OS X.

Re:It's partly true

[Dot.Com.CEO]

My work machine is a Mac OS X and I love it. Using it as the canon for Unix training however is plain wrong. I have 2 debian pcs, 1 mandrake and 1 netbsd. init 0 works in ALL the Unix boxes. I had never tried it on the Mac but using it daily I am not surprised. The *nix metaphore is so well hidden that I wouldn't doubt that even sudo shutdown wouldn't work. I will try that on Monday.

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

Apple might have modified or removed a few UNIX oddities here and there, but OS X is as POSIX complient as any other UNIX or Linux on the market. But obviously you should stick to Linux if that's what your audiences want to learn.

From Solaris 8 man page:

init is a general process spawner. Its primary role is to
create processes from information stored in the file
/etc/inittab.

Clearly it's not intended for shutting down the system, although it does have the side effect of killing other processes on the way. But this is quite a different issue than the silliest UI blunder by the most powerful and "innovative" software company in human history where the only way to shut down Windows is to click the Start button.

By the way, UNIX is not well hidden from OS X, and {sudo shutdown} works fine, so does {sudo reboot} or {sudo kill -9 -1}.

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

And let's not forget:

Speech recognition - I used and was impressed by the Chinese version on my 75 MHz PPC 601 Mac over 10 years ago, long before Bill Gates and MS Research started to hype the technology; the translucent iMac - the all-in-one wonder that has inspired not only the computer industry but also a generation of industrial designers for mobile phones, printers, furnitures and perhaps even Windows XP; G4 Cube - the 8" Gigaflops computer that has probably garnered more design awards than any other computer; iPod - the best MP3 player.

Re:It's partly true

[afantee]

And finally, the 17" PowerBook - 1" thin and the only portable (or desktop in the Wintel world) that comes with slot-loading DVD burner, built-in 802.11g AirPort Extreme, BlueTooth, FireWire 800, FireWire 400, USB, Gigabit Ethernet, and fiber optical sensor that would automatically illuminate the keyboard when light goes out.

Command Line Server??

[Anonymous Coward]

and this piece about Windows 2003 mentioning that Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

Didn't Microsoft develop that in like 1981? A thing called MS-DOS??

A Few Easy Steps...

[rasafras]

1. Create command-line only server
2. Claim command-line is innovation
3. Re-sell MS-DOS 1.0
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:A Few Easy Steps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality check; MS-DOS was not a server.

Next!

Re:A Few Easy Steps...

[Dthoma]

That business plan breaks down at step 3. As far as I know, most people would want their servers to be able to use a hierarchical file system.

Re:A Few Easy Steps...

[zurab]

Number 4 step is: Bundle it with Norton Commander!

Re:A Few Easy Steps...

[Anonymous Coward]

That could be a security advantage if the alternative is Windows ;-)

Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI?

[product byproduct]

Because direct implementation would require a complete rewrite of the codebase, anyone suspecting that the command lines you type will actually move a cursor and click on GUI elements internally, just without video output?

Balmer's ability to do math

[pashdown]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.

Then in response to the XBox,

Remember, we brought Windows 1 out in 1983...

I love interviews with Balmer.

MS coders learning from UNIX & Linux

[mactari]

I've always been impressed with descriptions of Window's technologies while they're being developed. Like it or not, Microsoft has -- and can afford to pay and retain -- some of the smartest minds in the field. I'd love to work with these guys, who seem to be open to using standards and who don't have so much FUD in their eyes or are so egotistical they can't learn from the *nixes.

The problem is that all these bright ideas go through Microsoft's "profit maximization machine" at some point and we get "embrace and extend" and other fun phonomena. I'll stop before I get back into that tired rant.

At any rate, here are two lessons learned -- by MS -- from *nixes, quoted from the article on the command line server. "Windows core technology guru Rob Short" says...
We'll be able to patch probably two thirds of the components without shutting the system down. That's an area where the Unix guys are ahead of us, because of the way they do redirection -- they can patch a file and then change the symbolic link. That's an area where we've got a problem, and we'll fix it in the near future when possible.

Later a quote on Linux:
[Question] Why is there no command line only version?

[Short's answer] We're looking longer term to see what can be done, looking at the layers and what's available at each layer and how do we make it much closer to the thing the Linux guys have -- having only the pieces you want running. That's something Linux has that's ahead of us, but we're looking at it. We will have a command line-only version, but whether it'll have all the features in is another matter.

Re:MS coders learning from UNIX & Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer's smartest minds work because they're paid.

OSS smartest minds work because they love it.

Re:MS coders learning from UNIX & Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> We will have a command line-only version.....

Having lived through IBM FUD followed by DEC FUD, let's call this what it is MS FUD.

Been there. Done that. Saw the movie. Got the t-shirt.

Cripes. They can't even innovate FUD.

Re:MS coders learning from UNIX & Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

what about those thousands of MSFT millionaires that don't need to work, but they continue to work because they like what they're doing?

Re:MS coders learning from UNIX & Linux

[LuckyStarr]

ever seen a coder becoming a millionaire, while working for a company? these millionaires are for sure only management dudes.

yegods!

[Telastyn]

anyone notice in the bottom link that in 2003 that the listener portion of IIS was moved into the kernel?

Am I the only one that that strikes as a poor idea?

Re:yegods!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it's just another fine innovation from Microsoft. They've implemented their own version of Tux.

It's likely that their implementation isn't that bad from a security standpoint. Typically the kernel bit just handles simple requests for static and cached pages, anything more complex or dynamic is handed off to the user process.

Re:yegods!

[ninewands]

This "innovation" is, no doubt, a response to the 2.4 kernel's optional khttpd.

Re:yegods!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great idea.

Now worm writers don't have to go through the hassle of utilizing one of any number of folder traversal bugs to execute programs!

Innovation Microsoft Style.

Software cost - right.

[jpellino]

"I don't think the price of software and the price of hardware have some inextricable link." Are you really that naive? Is your focus group made up of vested MS employees and department heads?

Yes they are linked, Steve. Perception is tantamount to reality. It might as well be a physical link, because everyone who goes thru it gets steamed. That link is quite obviously in the mind of everyone who buys a computer (e.g., iBook) for $999 thinking that it will do all their computing. Then they find out that you have to spend half of that ($499) to equip it with industry-standard software. *Then* they go find out that AppleWorks or something else can do 95% of the job for free-with-the-machine. I cover web, email, chat, PIM, WP, SS, DB, paint, draw, music, movies and photos with what shipped on the drive, and pay reasonable ($50-100) for other such things as PS(LE), HomePage, Keynote and eFax.

But $500 for a productivity suite? Not my first choice.

Re:Software cost - right.

[Keeper]

Whoever is charging $500 for Office is ripping you off (*cough* retail stores *cough*). The OEM enterprise edition costs $300 from newegg.com -- that's about $50 an app + a bunch of utils thrown in. If you want to get a package for grandma, get the OEM MS Works suite, which costs $75.

The cost of software and hardware are not linked. It doesn't make any sense to link them, no more so than linking the cost of gas with the cost of your car.

What about the positives aspects of the interview?

[jagripino]

Example:

We created the SMB file server specs, and we didn't have the fastest one around, which was embarrassing. So we took our performance team and said "your mission is to make ours twice as fast as this other one on the market."

I understand this to be the admission that Samba was faster than any SMB server MS had in the past, right? See, this is competition at work. Granted, Microsoft tried to discourage people from competing (in the SMB case, by making small changes to the protocols with each release, I believe. Correct me if I my wrong, please) but the Samba team still came out with a better product.

I expect that by this time next year the Samba team will be saying "yeah, we got a faster SMB server than the one in Windows 2003, but hey, they ASKED for it! Do you remember that S Ballmer interview?"...

Security tools

[peaworth]

We created tools that run across the code and understand almost all the attacks. Microsoft Research built a tool that can find almost all the buffer overflow problems

Yeah, that tool is called "a non-firewalled internet connection."

Re:Security tools

[NedTheNerd]

yea we made the tools that find the problems but its not designed to do anything about it :)

Re:Security tools

[Minna Kirai]

Actually, Microsoft-owned Slate Magazine is running an article claming that Theo deRaadt of OpenBSD has found a way to fix all buffer overflows. The journalist encourages Microsoft to copy it from BSD into Windows.

Re:Security tools

[indiigo]

"...almost all the buffer overflow problems..."

Now that's what I call PROGRESS!

Re:Security tools

[Anonymous Coward]

oh boy, that is too frickin' funny!

I just scared the hell out of my cat I laughed so hard!

Re:Security tools

[LuckyStarr]

I must state that with only a internet-connection, without knowledge of the system what you want to hack, there is no way to create a working exploit out of it.
You may do a DoS on the service or daemon but that would be anything. For a real exploit you need to:
- know the exact position of the overflowing buffer
- know where the programm will jump after accessing the addr
- hope the buffer is lower in the memory than the active code
- if lucky calculate how many chars you have to pad 'till you may insert your BadTings(tm) or RemoteConsoleHelpers(tm) without crashing
- test your stuff
- inform the vendor. If there is no reaction within acceptable time -> bugtraq (with or without exploit? your choice.)

Why am I writing this bullshit? :) Don't know.

Re:Security tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know what that article is talking about?

Re:Security tools

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the same mouthfull, having two critical overflow patches released.
Does this mean they know something, but are not going to put out cervix packs for their older products?

If its true, the the first 2003 server buffer overflow problems (if any) will look suss. When the number gets to six or so, the veracity of prior statements must be discounted.

As for Innovative, Yes they are. EULA restrictions and a 40% or so price hike with licencing 6. Steve should talk candidly about how much money this will bring in.

Microsoft's Strength

[SuiteSisterMary]

Yes. We're a clear No. 2 in the market. We are coming on strong. It is probably going to take us another turn of the crank, from a product cycle perspective, before we make money. But most of the things we do as a company successfully today we worked at for years before they made money. Remember, we brought Windows 1 out in 1983 and we didn't have any real volume until 1991. It took us eight years to get volume. I don't know when we got profit, but it took us eight years to get volume.

Take Windows server. We started on it in 1988, but it was probably 1998 before we had real volume, and I don't know when we would have said we had profitability on that product. But most of the good businesses require long-term patience, commitment, tenacity...and you can't be impatient. I feel very good that we have great teams to take MSN and Xbox in exactly those same directions.

They're willing to take ten YEARS to let something come to fruition; they have no problem 'waiting for fullness.'

This is a HUGE advantage that a lot of OSS people simply don't have; whoever's coding NiftyApp gets bored around version 0.64 and drops it, and meanwhile, some other guys is making GniftyApp 0.4 because he doesn't feel like working with the first guy.

On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.

Not worth having, worth selling.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[bogie]

That's pretty much an unfair comparison. It's not MS vs ALL opensource or even ALL commercial vs ALL opensource. To be fair you'd have to admit that many commercial programs come and go just like opensource ones do. Tons of commercial software fails every year regardless of how much money gets thrown at it. The good stuff sells and continue to be improved on but the same thing happen in the OSS world.

Opensource is not just one big company, so if 10 opensource projects cease development it really doesn't have the effect your implying since they are not all from the same group.

Your also bringing up the myth that all opensource programmers are drones and should all work on the same projects and not make competing ones. As has been pointed out a billion times, opensource programmers are not a single pool of resources to be pushed into whatever project YOU feel they should be working on.

Your right about MS having a lot of money so they can "afford more time to develop" a particular project but that's about it. When a really good OSS project comes along its going to make it regardless of how much money MS has. The advantage goes to the killer app.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[pmz]

On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.

1) Microsoft has lots, lots, and lots more of money.

2) Money allows hiring programmer-whores to hack on something until they get it right, even if by chance. Money also allows hiring conscience-less managers, lawyers, and marketeers to whip the whores into action and sell the resulting software to their masses of sheep...er, customers.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Alomex]

Money allows hiring programmer-whores

Just remember that the only difference between a salaried worker and a whore is the part of the body for sale in exchange for coin.

And yes, they both fsck the customer. Difference is: with the whore, the customer walks away happy.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[modok]

Microsofts patience and tenacity is an asset for them. However, they have been shown to abandon projects over the years (MS Bob anyone?). So it is worth noting that they do not always stick with it. Also sticking with a losing dog cannot always be a wise move (I think they realize this generally).

From an OSS perspective, 20 different "Gnifty" apps may show up, but as long as at least one succeeds; then all is well for OSS. I don't really consider this idea that many will fail as any different than from the closed source world. Many companies have put out word processors...Where are they? Is that a blemish on closed-source software as a model?

Also OSS does not have to win every battle to win the war (if we want to use such an analogy).
In fact, losing a battle seems to have no effect on OSS at all. They just keep coming...

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[SuiteSisterMary]

Do they abandon? Bob may be gone, but he lives on in the Office Assistant and the Microsoft Agent objects; speech-recognition built in and everything, scriptable from VB, even.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[SuiteSisterMary]

All valid points, but from a business perspective, you've just given several reasons not to use OSS.

Your also bringing up the myth that all opensource programmers are drones and should all work on the same projects and not make competing ones. As has been pointed out a billion times, opensource programmers are not a single pool of resources to be pushed into whatever project YOU feel they should be working on.

Well, damn, then I'll go to the pool of resouces that CAN be pushed onto whatever project I feel they should be working on.

Example? Microsoft customers wanted Internet focus. Microsoft pretended the Internet didn't exist. They pulled a company-wide about face in a YEAR. Full 180.

I'm not anti-OSS; I just finished setting up a pop toaster with qmail, vpopmail, qmail-scanner, spamassassin, clamAV, courier IMAP, squirrelmail, and MRTG to monitor it all. But I can't help but think that most of that is built into Exchange 2000 in a neat and compact way.

Microsoft is a different way, but it's not inherently better or worse than OSS. However, Microsoft's way very often coincides with the way a Business thinks things should be.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[g4dget]

This is a HUGE advantage that a lot of OSS people simply don't have;

Quite to the contrary: open source software that has a user community actually keeps going and going and going.

whoever's coding NiftyApp gets bored around version 0.64 and drops it, and meanwhile, some other guys is making GniftyApp 0.4

That's because NiftyApps is not where the meat of open source is happening. The meat is happening with the kernel, the servers, and the libraries. Those have large user communities, and large developer communities, and they don't just disappear. End user apps, on the other hand, are mostly trivial hacks on top of that (and if they aren't, they should be). End user apps are driven by fashion--they should change every few years.

On the other side of the pond, Microsoft will let something fail, and fail, and fail, tweak, twist, fix, and then they have something worth having.

Oh?

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[tedrlord]

But you seem to be missing the main point of his post. Opensource isn't one group, that only approaches things one way.

Microsoft may have been able to go from ignoring the internet to being fully focused on it in a year, but opensource programmers were already using it. They weren't all directed to work on the same thing, so they worked on what seemed useful. They get into these areas without having to be directed.

For whatever application space, there are probably already a good few opensource programs being worked on before Microsoft or whatever company decided to make it their business plan.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[sheldon]

In order to sell, you have to have someone willing to buy. Which means the product must be worth having.

This is part of the fundamental nature of capitalism...

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if that logic still applies. There wasn't a whole lot of market saturation back then. So Windows 1 came out in 1983. I bet it looked like piss and the hardware was running at full throttle. Things run at higher paced, today.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[ocelotbob]

This is a HUGE advantage that a lot of OSS people simply don't have; whoever's coding NiftyApp gets bored around version 0.64 and drops it, and meanwhile, some other guys is making GniftyApp 0.4 because he doesn't feel like working with the first guy.

You've spotted a fundamental difference between closed and open source apps, but it's not a matter of patience. Open Source apps are just that, open. You can see the development as it happens, see the abandoned sourceforge projects as people either bore of the project or move on for other reasons. Such failures in closed source apps means someone wipes the info from their hard drive and that's that. There's no monument to their abandonment, there's just someone who years later may say "I wonder if I still have the source to FooBarWorks lying around...wonder if I can finish it up".

Microsoft has its dropped projects too. The difference is that you don't hear about them unless you've got someone on the inside.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the luxury of a monopoly. MS can incur costs for Xbox that are double or triple that for Sony with PS2, yet still sell the XBox for 25% less than the PS2. They can lose money for years and years.

They are willing to do this to drive Nintendo and Sony out of the market. Not with innovation, but with lower prices.
In the early 90s I was amazed at Novell. They seemed to be the only corporation that had ever stood up against prolonged direct and focused MS "competition." IBM's OS/2 couldn't. Lotus couldn't. Borland couldn't. WordPerfect couldn't. But MS' LAN Manager just couldn't make any headway at all against Netware. Ten years later, and billions of dollars in losses, MS has eliminated the competion of Novell and now enjoys huge margins for their network server products.

Having disposed of Novell, MS turned their attention on Oracle. But then along came the distractions of the internet explosion, Netscape, and Linux. Still, Oracle has been hurt an enormous amount by MS' ability to take huge losses when entering a new market.

You know Nintendo is getting desperate, and Sony is seriously worried for the PS business.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes. We're a clear No. 2 in the market. We are coming on strong."

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Whoever is responsible for that remark should immediately seek psychiatric help.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[uberdave]

The problem that Microsoft faces with Linux is that it is impossible to undercut the price... unless they're willing to pay people to run Windows.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, losing a battle seems to have no effect on OSS at all. They just keep coming...

There are a lot of OSS projects where the developers know that they're never going to get a sizeable part of the market, and yet they still develop for it. Take the mac browser Camino for example. Even though with Apple's Safari they're pretty much guaranteed to always be an also-ran, they're still pushing out releases.

That's the true power of OSS: something doesn't have to be commercially viable, or even make sense, to get developer attention.

Ofcourse, this very same property means that even bad ideas get developer attention, which isn't that great a quality.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem that Microsoft faces with Linux is that it is impossible to undercut the price... unless they're willing to pay people to run Windows.

Actually, I seriously think they might just start doing this when they get desperate.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past Microsoft had the luxury of taking ten years because they had already crushed all competition on the PC platform. Read another way, MS was happy selling a sub-optimal product for ten years since you had nowhere else to go.
Regarding OSS, that's a shallow analysis. Some software does disappear forever (MS as well, remember Bob?), but anything with promise usually is picked up or melded into other projects once the originator gets bored.

Re:Microsoft's Strength

[Spoing]

From an OSS perspective, 20 different "Gnifty" apps may show up, but as long as at least one succeeds; then all is well for OSS. I don't really consider this idea that many will fail as any different than from the closed source world. Many companies have put out word processors...Where are they? Is that a blemish on closed-source software as a model?

Agreed...in addition, I've personally worked on many software projects intended to become commercial boxed products and about 1/3 of them are abandoned and never shows up at all -- not even as a feature or a substantial part of another product. Sure, a stub might appear though usually it does not or the stub gets removed at some point.

If an open source project is posted, it may be reused or taken over by others -- even if the initial abandoned version isn't worthy of much.

The closed project just dies. How many substantial projects does MS abandon in a year? My bet is well over the 1/3 rate I've seen.

So, the barrier to sucess in the boxed software commercial world is much higher since there are more ways to kill a project off before it even becomes a product.

i'll take heat for this...

[edrugtrader]

it seriously looks like they are moving in the right direction.

HTTP handling in kernel mode... well... maybe they got drunk that day... but the rest sounds like they are making progress and fixing the legacy design issues that have been around since NT and 98.

Re:i'll take heat for this...

[Minna Kirai]

HTTP handling in kernel mode... well... maybe they got drunk that day

Other developers have gotten drunk too.

(That is one place where Open Source developers can claim MS is copying their "innovation")

Issues with Windows 2xxx servers

[losttoy]

What does Windows 2003 offer over Windows 2000? Does it offer more stability? Does it decouple the kernel/core from the applications like the GUI?

I have been concerned about using Windows 2xxx servers because of the tight integration. A change to the Java settings of the browser requires a restart. A change in DNS server or IP address of an interface, randomly, demands a reboot.

IMHO, Microsoft should work on making the OS easier to understand and administer for administrators. Point and click is only one way of making it easier. Unix/Linux scores over Windows because Administrators can see the insides and hence administer the systems more confidently. As an administrator, if I can't trust my OS, I wouldn't run critical apps on it.

All I want from a server OS is a stable filesystem, good I/O and mem-mgmt, clean ways to adminsiter apps, and good security. Not tonnes of attached paraphenila and parasitic apps bundled with the OS.

May the source be your saviour.

Re:Issues with Windows 2xxx servers

[gamorck]

I have been concerned about using Windows 2xxx servers because of the tight integration. A change to the Java settings of the browser requires a restart. A change in DNS server or IP address of an interface, randomly, demands a reboot.

Complete and utter crap. It looks to me like you've never used any version of NT beyond NT4 if you are stilling spewing shit like that.

IMHO, Microsoft should work on making the OS easier to understand and administer for administrators. Point and click is only one way of making it easier. Unix/Linux scores over Windows because Administrators can see the insides and hence administer the systems more confidently. As an administrator, if I can't trust my OS, I wouldn't run critical apps on it.

If you are going to share - stop smoking the crack in front of us, okay? Are you actually going to stand here and tell me that Linux is easier to use and understand than Windows? I guess all those paper MCSEs out there don't mean a damn thing then do they? When it comes to the initial learning curve - a GUI based system will always be easier on the user than a CLI based system. However it stands to reason that the CLI based system can prove to be far more efficient than a GUI system once the user/administrator becomes more experienced. Either way - try to inject a little sanity into your next comment okay? It's not a sin to love or hate MS but it is a sin to remain so woefully ignorant about the very thing you criticize.

J

Re:Issues with Windows 2xxx servers

[Anonymous Coward]

multiprocessing I believe is the name of the game. Windows 2000 isn't so great at multiprocessing with lots of processors. But win 2003 server has already proved its mettle with 32 and 64 itanium 2 systems. This is clearly its target audience.

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_result s. asp?resulttype=noncluster

Innovation

[Aaron M. Renn]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think Ballmer has a point that the free software community really hasn't done a lot of truly innovative work. Apple, there's innovation. But free software? I don't know.

A lot of this comes from the fact that we started with zero and had to build a free software base. So we did indeed have to re-invent the wheel to produce a totally free operating system. But today, when we should be at the point where we are really leading, we really aren't doing as much as we should.

Gnome & KDE are really Windows / Mac knockoffs of a GUI environment.

Gimp is a clone of Photoshop & co.

Samba is a free implementation of Windows file sharing.

etc. etc. etc.

Did the free software community invent peer to peer file sharing, instant messaging, EAI, ERP, or Java? No. And every time a proprietary technology like that comes along, the free software community has to devote large amounts of resources to implementing a compatible version.

Where's the "killer app" for free software? Where is the project that makes free software drive the market instead of the other way around? There are possibly a few things out there (Beowulf?), but not nearly enough. The ones that are really driving it are just using free software as a base (e.g., TiVO).

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

>Where's the "killer app" for free software?

*cough* Um. How about the Linux kernel for starters? Apache? Perl? Um, how about plain old shell scripting? Why does Windows now include a scripting host?

Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't have a killer app so much as they are the killers themselves, holding their customers hostage. "Upgrade now or lose all support." You think Word is a killer app?

Why is it that you don't see or hear much about Windows being embedded within devices nowadays? Certainly the marketing gorilla that is M$ would let us all know. Where, exactly, is Microsoft's killer app?

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is stupid.

Windows is a knockoff of Mac knockoff of Xerox Alto knockoff of desktop

Excel is knockoff of 123 knockoff of Visicalc knockoff of calculator

Word is knockoff of Gem Write / Mac Write knockoff of typewriter etc.

You think innovation is some dinky new feature? Get real.

The TRUE innovation is that Linux provides a complete operating system and office suite and all other applications free, free to use, free to distribute, free to modify. This is the ultimate in freedom of expression and capitalism: the ability of anyone to harvest and use this shared resources.

The TRUE innovation is that Linux provides the only effective competition that Microsoft has. What people miss when they whine about Linux not being the same as or revolutionarily different from Microsoft is that THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The innovation is that you can grab what you want, free and legally, any time, modify it, use it or not use it, share it or make a profit off it.

You are also completely free to waste your money on Microsoft then whine on the web about Linux not being good enough for you. Why should anyone care what you think? Linux is there, period. It doesn't matter if you use it or not. It is a resource free to all.

If you don't care about abusive monopolies (which crush competition and the free market and diversity) you're free to act accordingly.

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of plenty of innovations in KDE that have not found their way to windows.... (for instance open up the file manager and add /*.pdf to the end of the location... see what happens to the file manager, or right clicking on a window and making it stick to the screen)...

The sound mixers, system monitors etc embedded into the panel I would also concider an innovation.

I would concider multiple desktops an innovation.

I also concider having integrated developement tools out of the box an inovation (kdevelop)...

Most people miss the innovitions because what the want is a Windows workalike.

Gimp also has innovations not found in photoshop and co. Gimp has a non modal interface - opening up a colour picker does not freeze the rest of the interface.

Gimp supports several popular scripting languages.

It is really not fair to include Samba as its purpose is to allow communication with an existing system (Windows) so there is not much room for innovation here.

I concider the Linux Command Line environment to have many innovations over any other offerings I have tried. Simualarly for scripting...

Firehose is an innovation I have not seen on any other system. It Allows you to increase you networ k bandwidth by using multiple network cards in parralell.

Re:Innovation

[Wehesheit]

How about the fact that it doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Who cares about innovation as long as it works and works well and is affordable and can be suited to a person/companies needs.

Re:Innovation

[Badanov]

Actually I prefer the Unix philosophy of tiny programs performing a single simple function, then exiting from memory. I guess that make me 'outdated' or whatever paradigm MS is trying to push, but so be it.

I see 'innovation' from Microsoft as some tiny graphical module performing a task that can easily be scripted in Linux in the background. Microsoft reminds me of a guy trying to sell me an overpriced car loaded with everything, but as an 'innovation', they include an ass-scratcher at no extra charge. Just who the fuck needs an ass-scratcher?

You gotta understand: I am an old guy and when I 'discovered' Redhat 5.1, that was all I needed. As I learned Linux and appreciated it more and more, I became more in love with it and more and more comfortable with it. Things I like about Linux 1) Perl scripting 2) Bash scripting 3) A secure file system, so secure I kinda scare myself with the smugness Linux gives me.

Now I have no experience with Windows' NT type products, but I do not like what I have heard, and I do understand that inasmuch as there is some element of scripting in MS's NT product line, it is truly not as deep and comprehensive as the tools you have with Linux.

Mr. Ballmer is a dynamic salesman. I will give him that much, but I gusss I have to tell him from my teeny, tiny corner of the world: No sale, move along.

Re:Innovation

[Namaseit]

What is all this bullshit about having to re-invent the wheel. Linux is still in infantcy, why do all these people want linux to reinvent crap and do it now. Linux innovation is happening, right now some guy is sitting in his basement thinking of something so great and grand it will change computing forever. Or hes picking his nose thinking about the new buffy the vampire episode he just downloaded. Either way innovation doesnt happen in the snap of your fingers.

Re:Innovation

[fymidos]

As i said before, OSS is more about perfection than innovation.

I believe it's simply because a good idea like the ones you mention is usually worth selling.

But that's ok, once you get something started: look at mozilla, or even kde, or gimp, or gaim, or ... they are as good or better than the "originals" and they got to the point where they actually innovate. There were even other animals standing on two feet before the ape :)

(and of course gtk-gnutella is my p2p client of choice -- i simply hate the commercial crap)

Re:Innovation

[RickHunter]

That was sort of my point - small programs chained together in simple ways used to produce complex results IS the Unix Way. Object-oriented techniques allow this at the programmer level, making systems like KDE possible, but don't do anything for the user-level. So what we need is a way to support the Unix Way for a graphical environment.

I'd do it myself, but my "UI sense" is horrible.

Seattle Steve

[Alien Being]

There are no Linux infidels is in any of the data centers, some of them. They are not within 100 miles. This is an illusion. They are trying to sell people on an illusion.

They tried to bring a small number of web and print servers through the backdoor but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their links cut.

I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Redmond. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly.

You can go and visit those places. Nothing there, nothing at all. There are DRM checkpoints. Evrything is okay.

Re:Seattle Steve

[Pengo]

Dude, all I have to say is I was laughing my ass when I read your post. I can't think of a better way to describe that guy.

Re:Seattle Steve

[revery]

There are days that as I read something on Slashdot, I realize I am reading genius. This was one of them.

For me, the voice in my head was Will Ferrell playing Mustafa from the Austin Powers movies....

Thanks for the laughs...

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:Seattle Steve

[glenebob]

Oh man, that rocked. I got halfway through the article and suddenly I was reminded of the Iraqi info minister and was going to post a joke about it. But why bother? Nice one :-)

Re:Seattle Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Sig! Sig box! Now.

Asshole.

Re:Seattle Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.spookshows.com/toys/fester/uncle.htm

Well, he's probably right

[autopr0n]

I think if you compared innovative new features that are part of 'windows' compared to the standard Linux install, he'd be right. Windows does have a lot of new, interesting features on the server end.

It's totally insecure, of course.

Otoh, one of the nice things about Open source and Linux is that you can pick and chose things you want to include on your server, and you can do it without upgrading to new versions of the software. Integration on windows is just irritating as fuck, everything is rolled up into one huge chunk that you have to pay for.

Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[Spencerian]

NIH = Not Invented Here.

This myopic view of their business model:

1) Prevents Microsoft from embracing (in the traditional sense, not in how we usually think of MS doing with this concept) the point that UNIX operating systems are tried and true technology, given that they HAVE been around for a very long time in computer years.

2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.

3) Leaves Microsoft in a sacrificial lamb situation when businesses have to look at the bottom line in a tech solution where a competing *NIX product simply does the same task for less money or less complex or proprietary technologies and with less licensing hassles.

Microsoft has beaten the dead horse of The Operating System as the Hub of All You Do paradigm for too long now. Operating systems are still important but now revolve around two camps: Microsoft Windows technology, and *NIX technologies (BSD, Sun, Mac OS X, Linux and its many distros, et al.). What many businesses now need revolves less on what you run your apps on, but the apps themselves.

I see Microsoft losing more revenue due to their licensing model, which still presumes that it's the 1990's and money is everyone. Businesses are finding it hard to justify yearly OS or application suite upgrades. IT managers are just moving to Windows 2000 Server right now, and aren't going to figure in Windows 2003 Server anytime soon.

Meanwhile, many *NIX operating systems are free or lower cost than a Microsoft solution, and does much of the same, if not more. Further, Microsoft tends to develop their software proprietarily, so that third-parties can rarely adapt an MS product to their own product.

Such attitudes killed many a computer company. Usually people think of Apple when pondering NIH, but even Apple is far from those days, with their BSD hybrid OS, stock industry standard ports and protocols, yadda, yadda, yadda.

To use an overused /. joke, Microsoft is dying, being swallowed by their own need to swallow everything.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[SuiteSisterMary]

2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.

There have been several versions of IE for Solaris.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[gamorck]

1) Prevents Microsoft from embracing (in the traditional sense, not in how we usually think of MS doing with this concept) the point that UNIX operating systems are tried and true technology, given that they HAVE been around for a very long time in computer years.

Ummmm... really? Ever heard of MS Xenix?

2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.

Hogwash. MS sells Frontpage server component modules for *nix versions of Apache. MS produced Xenix at one time. MS also produces Internet Explorer for OSX. Hell MS even produces a product called "MS Windows Services for UNIX" that allows users to seamlessly integrate Windows 2000+ servers into a *nix environment! I'm not even going to mention the fact that MS has released .NET tools (and the applicable source code) for both FreeBSD and OSX operating systems. You are nothing less than completely off base here.

3) Leaves Microsoft in a sacrificial lamb situation when businesses have to look at the bottom line in a tech solution where a competing *NIX product simply does the same task for less money or less complex or proprietary technologies and with less licensing hassles.

Newsflash: At some point Microsoft will have to compete against its competitors. They can't be everything to everybody. If a customer finds *nix to be a more cost effective solution then so be it. But lets not pretend that if MS offered all of their applications on *nix that they would be better for it. Call it vendor lock-in or whatever you will but its the combination of products that MS peddles rather than any particular product that keeps them on top of so many markets.

J

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[Dionysus]

If there is something Microsoft isn't, is that they're not suffering from NIH syndrome.

The whole idea of NIH is that the developer refuse to use something he didn't write himself.

Well, is that true for Microsoft? Lets see, they licensed IE, they took the TCP stack, their enterprise OS is based on VMS, SQLServer was bought.

Most of the technologies that MS have, are either bought or licensed. To say Microsoft suffers from NIH syndrome is pretty silly statement.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[Spencerian]

My statement isn't silly at all. NIH has been, in my experience, attributed more to hardware and software adoption to industry standards.

Microsoft prefers to make its own standards in software or twist the ones they adapt to fit their needs, making the result a technology that is theirs and unextensible by contract or design.

Simply buying a product for their use or licensing it doesn't release MS from the results of how they use it. For instance, Microsoft licensed Java, and turned it into a joke on its operating system by twisting its functionality. Unfortunately, that is a MS developer style. Current trends indicate they are resisting change more than adapting to it as they have very successfully and profitably done in the past.

Not Invented Here thinking kept Apple, for instance, from cloning themselves at a key time. They couldn't see that extending things beyond themselves would work well for their business plan. NIH kept Apple from changing their hardware model to something more in line with PCs to make them less expensive to produce.

Microsoft, from how I see it, doesn't see the benefits of a significant UNIX move in both their OS and apps, and I don't mean modest apps, but popular mainstream versions of their popular tools, such as Office. This path may be a bad move for them, but time will tell if my speculation is right or wrong.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[1010011010]

Not really. Those solaris versions are just the windows version, built with MainWin -- sort of the commercial version of Wine.

Saying that Solaris-IE is Solaris software is like saying that Half-life is Linux software, because I can run it under Wine. I can, and do, but it's Windows software.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why they progressively make more and more money each quarter while continually offering more products, features, and services while expanding into new markets? - this sounds more like growth as opposed to death if you ask me.

Re:Microsoft suffers from NIH Syndrome

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, by similar logic, isn't Office OS X simply a carbon or cocoa app? And isn't OS X not a UNIX, but a MACH running several common UNIX utilities?

Search MSN for this article

[cyber_rigger]

MSN running on an Akami Linux server :^)

http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.msn.com/

Re:Search MSN for this article

[NTmatter]

Am I mistaken, or is that an open proxy? Isn't it sort of a bad idea to post that kind of thing around here?

I wonder..

[Anonymous Coward]

...how long it will take for M$ to "realize" that Linux implements THEIR commandline technology and sue Linus for stealing THEIR technology.

Cost of Office

[KillerHamster]

If you put Office on a PC, it can be one-third of the material cost of the system. Is that sustainable? Hard drives are going down in price and processors are going down in price.

I think that is a bad way to look at it. I don't think the price of software and the price of hardware have some inextricable link. I think what we need to make sure of is customer perception of value versus competitive offerings. I think we've got the right mix of capability, functionality, simplicity, price, etc. I don't think looking at it relative to hardware prices takes you any place.

I'm guessing he's never had to shell out $500+ for Office.

20 year old clone, what about windows?

[LucentFlame]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.

He later goes on to say "Remember, we brought Windows 1 out in 1983". 2003 - 1983 == 20 year old windows. I mean if linux is just a clone of unix, ignoring the 1000s of people working in it, windows must be a clone of windows, right?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Games on!

[santos_douglas]

Actually, I think he meant 'Game on' but that's just nit picking. When asked why Linux is being used on the server side he responds: "I think we have a pretty good story, but I tell you, game's on. We've got to prove ourselves, and some people are choosing Linux. I don't think that is going to continue to be the case." A good story? I thought we were talking about OSes here, now MS is selling stories? This is pure marketroid speak.

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system....

[Dante]

"Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition." --Balmer

"well we should all stop using computers. they are 55 year old clone of a turing machine." --Me

Ballmer abandons the monkey dance!

[HarveyBirdman]

"I will no longer be performing the monkey dance," said a sweaty, flatulent Steve Ballmer on Friday morning to a confused crowd at a Redmond Dunkin' Donuts. "I have decided to adopt the 'Iraqi Two-Step' as my favorite mode of expressing my inner funkitude." He then proceeded to bounce up and down, slap his chest and slice his head with a small sword.

"It his outer funk that worries me," said Randy Jarvis, a FedEx deliveryman who stopped a moment to watch the early morning spectacle. He held his nose against the olfactorius assault. "Geez, my eyes are watering. Does this count as a chemical weapon? Will I need to be decontaminated?"

Neither Geroge Clinton nor Tarik Aziz could not be reached for comment.

PS: I love how he said, "This is an interesting time." You think he knows that's a curse in many cultures?

Re:Ballmer abandons the monkey dance!

[spectecjr]

PS: I love how he said, "This is an interesting time." You think he knows that's a curse in many cultures?

Wishing someone interesting times is a curse. Noting that you're living in them is not.

Re:Ballmer abandons the monkey dance!

[HarveyBirdman]

Wishing someone interesting times is a curse. Noting that you're living in them is not.

I know, but he seemed to imply that it has become an interesting time because of his company's grotty new software pile, thus he implies that his software will curse the world.

Or something...

You guys are talkin shit now!!!

[DA-MAN]

You guys are talkin shit now, but when DOS Server 2003 comes out, you will all be the ones embracing the first ever command line driven Server OS! Fear the innovation!

Linux in pieces:

[Bazman]

Ballmer says "The fact is that if you want to do some kind of integrated innovation that touches the kernel, that touches the user interface--there is no way.", because of the way Linus controls the kernel and someone else controls the user interface.

What he doesn't point out is that if you want to do anything - *ANYTHING* - with the Windows kernel or the Windows luser interface you either have to work for the company or sign your soul to them.

And he's also plain *wrong*. If you want to change the kernel and the user interface, and ooh, lets add, integrate the filesystem into your new UI/kernel integrated innovation, you can. Just do it. You've got the source. Do it, release it, its done. Linus might not like it, and you might not be able to call it Linux, but call it 'Xinul' or something. Freedom - aaah, smell it.

Baz

Compare Ballmer with the "command-line" article...

[ByTor-2112]

Sounds like Ballmer and their lead kernel developers don't agree on what Linux's strengths and weaknesses are.

Yikes

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that. On the other hand, in terms of putting a clear, simple proposition in front of the customer, I think we have a leading edge proposition.

I thought this bit stood out from the rest of the article. Most of what Ballmer says is drivel, like his response to the Xbox vs. Office question. But there is something to be said about a "clear, simple proposition". I know these words were spoken by The Dancing Monkey, but there is some truth in them nonetheless.

Best. Quote. Ever.

[zulux]

"We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky, senior systems engineer on the Microsoft.com operations team.

Shit - I have workstations up for over a year, and these people are impressed with a server staying up for 3 months. My fucking Sharp Zaurus PDA aparently has more "crazy uptime." than this peice of crap.

No wonder Microsoft can't get any traction in the server room - if 3 months is considered "crazy uptime."

(quote swiped from theregister.co.uk)

(please excuse my swearing, but this is silly - Windows belongs on the XBOX, not in the server room)

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[Snork Asaurus]

We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky, senior systems engineer on the Microsoft.com operations team.

Wouldn't it be funny if he had then said:

Then we're going to go totally nuts, plug in the network cable and run something on it. Oh shit, I wasn't talking out loud just now, was I?

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[the idoru]

ha! my freaking ibook has uptimes that exceed that, and that thing's a total workhorse. its never running less that half-a-dozen apps in the dock and it probably gets put to sleep/woken up 20+ times a day. the only time i've ever had to reboot it was after updating the os using the software update app. come on, if their server can't rival a little laptop, they should just keep mum about it.

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[Darth RadaR]

"We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky, senior systems engineer on the Microsoft.com operations team.

Maybe I don't bother with Windows in that much depth, but, how in the fsck can you tell the uptime on a Win server?

OTOH, They may have that on Win2003. It took MS until Win2K to figure out that file quotas[0] might be a good idea, and it took them until XP to find that some form of 'su' is a handy thing.

[0] Yeah, I know, they had 3rd party software for that.

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[erikdotla]

Really? I'm #3 on this page (445 day uptime on NT): http://tuxtime.dk/index.php?page=top10&os=Wind ows

And that's a real box. On the Internet. With IIS, SQL Server, MySQL, FrontPage Extensions, and Perl, and used daily.

Would have lasted longer if we hadn't moved...

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[Unregistered]

impressive numbers. My UPS runs out about every 3 months, so i could never imagin uptime like that. Wait, you mean they go down for reasons other than power. what a sad state of affairs.

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[LuckyStarr]

I can confirm that. Given ENOUGH knowledge can enable you to run windows that long without failure.

But standard MCSEs just won't help. You are in a priviledged position. :D

Re:Best. Quote. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our HP-UX box running a geographic information system: 1236 days.

Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[GeorgieBoy]

"A lot of the tools depend on having the graphical interface. Printing, for example, requires all the graphics subsystems because we have the "what you see is what you get" model. You need to have the whole of the display stuff to render it. It's a very tangled subsystem."

So tangled that this makes no sense. Printing is a really dumb example, Steve. No one needs WYSIWYG on their print server! :)

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[paradesign]

looks like he needs CUPS.

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[Clover_Kicker]

This actually makes a perverse kind of sense. Win32 uses some of the same routines to draw to the screen device as it does to draw to the print device.

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[rhinoX]

It uses the exact same subsystem. You draw to a device context, all drawing is done with the same commands. The device context is mapped to a physical device (so your code isn't 100% the same, due to DPI changes, etc) and the driver for said device knows how to interpret the data in the context. Printing under windows is a breeze if you know the basics of the GDI.

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas the Unix logic is that nobody needs WYSIWYG at all.

Real men write their own PostScript, after all.

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, WYSIWYG, even on a headless windows print server.

(of course in this case you see nothing . . . )

Re:Printing subsystem on a CLI box?

[Foolhardy]

I think he is referring to how the GDI is used for both screen output and priting, as the printer is considered another output device. Here is a link to a msdn page related to it. Since the GDI is now (since NT4) entirely part of the win32 subsystem (implemented in win32k.sys), I can imagine that they are entangled.

Microsoft's endemic security failure.

[NZheretic]

The endemic failure of Microsoft toward the security of it's own products, services and customers is reason enough to bring the use of Windows2003 server in mission-critical tasks into question.

For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.

Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.

Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.

There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.

For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days

Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE had not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.

Other inherent vulnerabilities, such as the Shatter attack ( http://security.tombom.co.uk/moreshatter.html ), Microsoft has known about since 1994!

Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.

It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.

Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.

A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.

Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.

From Jason Coombs' A response to Bruce Schneier on MS patch management and Sapphire ( http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158 )

Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) and Microsoft's version of HFNetChk both failed to detect the presence of the well-known vulnerability in SQL Server exploited by Sapphire, which is one of the reasons so many admins (both inside and outside MS) had failed to install the necessary hotfix. MBSA and HFNetChk are Microsoft's official patch status verification tools meant to be used by all owners of Windows server boxes ...

...In addition to designing MBSA to avoid scanning for SQL Server vulnerabilities, failing to update mssecure.xml reliably and in a timely manner, deprecating HFNetChk by pushing the MBSA GUI as its preferred replacement, and hiding the details of the technical limitation

Re:Microsoft's endemic security failure.

[bmajik]

you keep posting this same message on every MS article. Please stop

1) the timeliness of anything JVM related is impacted legally because Sun sues us for shipping a JVM and then sues us AGAIN for NOT SHIPPING a JVM. You might remark that the first time around, suing us for shipping a "doesn't play the way Sun wants us to play" JVM was perhaps justified, but then suing us AGAIN for not shipping a jvm after Sun realized that desktop java was dead because of their own stupid moves is just absurds. Seems like Sun got it both ways. The legal wrangling of java/jvm and how it infects MS is the result of that. We have to do a fire drill anytime anything about Java comes up and its all for legal reasons. I don't know for sure, but i'd suspect that there were legal reasons related to the timing of the JVM fixes.

2) The shatter attack a) has a patch that helps address it b) is not nearly as impactful as the paper makes it seem. People are making a lot bigger deal out of this than is warranted. When you know of an actual shatter based compromise that actually affects you, do let me know

3) You're basing this on the words of one person, granted, one pretty popular person in certain circles, but as there's no new patches from MS and no new SMB exploits/disclosures running around, this is neither proven nor disproven. One could argue that this was reactionary on the part of Allison, and that he didn't go back and carefully try each of those vulns he remembers coming across against W2k server or W2k3 server. You definitely don't know the answer, do you, so why do you keep bringing it up ? I mean, if I say i've found 30 security bugs in OpenBSD, but im not telling, you'd tell me i was a crack head and to sod off. How much reputation do i need to build before you extend me the same non-questioning acceptance you've given to the samba team ?

Finally, regarding the issue of patching - did you or did you NOT read the article ? Ballmer says clearly that patching is an area of known poor performance and that it is being worked on. Getting every single product at MS under a unified, smart patching system is a big undertaking, it seems reasonable that you might consider giving them a year or two to work on it. After all, how long did mac users put up with the beach ball cursor ? How long did XFree users put up with non-accelerated video ? How long did linux users put up with a joke way of handling audio hardware ? You never said "I want idiot-proof sound TOMORROW or linux is UNUSABLE!" Nobody said "mac is inherently unusauble and unfit for work becaue it has a beachball cursor that wont be fixed for over 3 weeks!"

So, please stop posting your repetitive propoganda on a consistant basis. Or at least spice it up a little with some content/insight/knowledge.

Re:Microsoft's endemic security failure.

[KJKHyperion]

Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer [...]

Jesus Christ, I swear I've already read this post at least three times. What does this mean? why do you keep posting this over and over and over again?

Other inherent vulnerabilities [...]

"Inherent". Oh, please! why doesn't anybody even make some attempt at research? I mean, how can you talk out of your ass so blatantly? Do you know what I did, when I read the (laughable and written by a media whore type, as I realized shortly thereafter) article about Shatter? I fired up the PSDK help, and checked, one by one, the documentation of all of the window messages to see how many passed pointers to procedures as their parameters. I don't like making unsupported claims - if the topic interests me (and anything Windows does), I always do some research, regardless of how much time it's going to cost me

Anyway, guess how many I found? exactly one: the WM_TIMER discussed in the article (some sub-messages of WM_NOTIFY did too, but since WM_NOTIFY can't be sent inter-process that doesn't matter). The fix was trivial - just look for WM_TIMER in the Knowledge Base for a number of good articles about the fix and some errors in designing non-interactive services that should be avoided (and that Microsoft learned to avoid the hard way)

[...] Microsoft has known about since 1994!

Any supporting fact to this claim? no, obviously. Microsoft (and everyone else, for that matter) have always "known" about it not entirely unlike everybody knew about gets(), strcat(), sprintf() but didn't realize they were dangerous

Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, [...]

If you're going to troll, at least be humble. You could have said "The initial fix for Windows NT 4 was broken and it caused repeated BSODs", but no, you prefer unsupported claims, knowing that Slashdot is mostly a Linux crowd that will just nod in approvation. Well, I personally tested the exploit, and patched my machine as soon as the QFE came out - what did you do, apart from copying-pasting a post four times?

None of Microsoft's own hotfix/patch status scanning tools designed to prove "baseline security" were able to help administrators avoid Sapphire.

So Microsoft says "it's the best tool" and everybody automatically believes it? Can someone explain why Windows seems to cause chronic laziness in so many people?

I mean, I feel constantly stimulated by learning new things about its internals and trying new toys every day, so I can't sympathize at all with fellow Windows users that happily swallow Microsoft press releases or never even try alternatives to Microsoft tools even if they know they exist (e.g., in this case, the original HFNetChk by Shavlik, that I find better. Other examples are people insisting to use Visual C++ even if they hate it, have always used GCC and know that there's GCC for Windows - I mean, WTF?)

Re:Microsoft's endemic security failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I ain't no coward but I don't want to open my 193rd web forum account...

To the point:
Your(KJKHyperion) type of thinking is what I miss most in a lot of windows people.
Most of them are content with sitting on their butt doing nothing not testing not experimenting always believing what they are told forgetting patches and so on.

I believe most of the problems windows systems face on daily basis are cause by the people (mis)treating them...

They were led (by MS) to believe that a win system needs no maintenance and has gentle learning curve.
None of these is exactly true...
Any real MS engineer or programmer can tell you this.
And in this MS systems are not so different from *NIX systems. You need good people to run them.
Any system is as secure and trustworthy as the people working it.

The THING the Linux guys have...

[Anonymous Coward]

(emphasis mine) Did anyone else think his choice of words there was rather amusing? ...the thing the Linux guys have -- having only the pieces you want running.

Hey everybody, we have a THING happening here. LoL!

Inovation is easy

[Kanon]

'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source]

Inovation is easy when you have the cash to just buy it from someone else and stick your logo on it.

Our Customers

[betis70]

Well if they are YOUR customers, they are likely not using Open Source, so it's a tautology that they have seen more innovation from MS than from the Open Source community.

You can't see the innovation if you never use the software.

Symbolic Links in NTFS

[Clipper]

That's an area where the Unix guys are ahead of us, because of the way they do redirection -- they can patch a file and then change the symbolic link. That's an area where we've got a problem, and we'll fix it in the near future when possible.

Is is safe to assume that MS will be implementing symbolic links on files in NTFS (real symlinks, not "shortcuts" :-)? Or is this statement just referring to how MS plans to be able to update files without having to reboot the system?

Interestingly enough, NTFS5 (on Win2K and above) already has support for a structure called Junctions. Essentially, these behave like symbolic links do in Unix, except that they can only point to directories (not to files). You can either use linkd.exe (provided in the Win2K Resource Kit) or visit Sysinterals, where they have a tool that will also create junctions. It's interesting that when MS deployed this feature, they didn't add support for symlinking to files also (granted, I don't know how NTFS works, so maybe it's not so trivial to link to files).

Re:Symbolic Links in NTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

MS already implemented symlinks in NTFS for NT 5, but they removed the feature in 1998. It's really easy to do with reparse points, but making symlinks to directories can cause cycles which will make a substantial number of the programs out there fail.

Any enterprising developer can simply make their own reparse point filter to implement symlinks, so you could do it if you had the wherewithall (although it may require buying the filesystem SDK).

Note that hardlinks to files have been available in NTFS since day 1 due to the need for POSIX compliance, but the program you need to create them (ln, of course) only came with the resource kit. In 2003, the utility is named something else (fsutil?) and comes with it.

Re:Symbolic Links in NTFS

[rhinoX]

Hard links already exist in NTFS, as well as the "junction points" you speak of. NTFS supports pretty much every feature worth having in a file system. Internally, each file is made up of a bunch of attributes & metadata, including filenames. A file with multiple names is effectively a hard-link. A symbolic link is simply a file with a particular attribute set, and the associated meta-data format specifies what it's linked to.

Steve is right on that count

[TooTechy]

Unfortunately the guy might be right. What 'innovation' has come out of the OSS camp? Let's see.

Linux, nope an old OS (UNIX clone).
GUI, nope catchup of MS technologies (originally copies of X etc. Not OSS at the time)Now using things like CORBA, arguably OSS as it is Open.
Apache Modules, there's one!

Can anyone continue this list? I would love to know what innovations have come from OSS.

Re:Steve is right on that count

[Namaseit]

Depends on what you consider innovation.

Is the concept of a GUI innovative? No.
But then again microsoft isnt innovative in that sense.

I think XFree86 and KDE/Gnome/etc. are innovative, they did something from scratch. They didnt just look at the windows gui source and steal half of it. No they didnt innovate the concept but they did innovate the core structure!

well said

[bigpat]

We're looking longer term to see what can be done, looking at the layers and what's available at each layer and how do we make it much closer to the thing the Linux guys have -- having only the pieces you want running. That's something Linux has that's ahead of us, but we're looking at it.

"having only the pieces you want running"... this is great! They see having only the software that you want running as a technological advance that is somewhere down the road?

It may not be inovative...

[arose]

But at least GNU/Linux had .html files before 1995...

More innovation?

[xchino]

Ok, Balmer, let's see the actual innovation that your customers are seeing, that just isn't within the open source community. What is your answer to User Mode Linux? Nothing. You have nothing. Can I mount and reconfigure an ISO on the fly without special software with Windows? No.

Q: What can I do with MS that I can't do with Linux?
A: Nothing.

Q: What can I do with Linux that I can't do with MS?
A: A hell of alot.

Re:More innovation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want to be technical, you can't mount and reconfigure an ISO on the fly without special software in Linux either. Since it's all the support tools added on to Linux that makes it a usable os, linux by itself isn't much to look at.

It just happens to be the special tools for your ISO mounting are included in the distro you are using.

Re:More innovation?

[cK-Gunslinger]

Correction...

Q: What can I do with MS that I can't do with Linux?
A: Nothing.

How about walk into any retail software store, buy any just-released commercial game and have it installed and playing that same day? Or how about playing the tens-of-thousands of already released titles?

I like Linux too, but let's not go overboard.

Re:More innovation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no.. iso filesystems are part of the kernel.

Innovations

[hey]

Humm, one "innovation" mentioned was HTTPD.SYS, an in kernel webserver. Sounds like Tux that was released a few years ago. (I hear it was renamed. I wonder if Apache on Windows will be able to use HTTPD.SYS eventually)

I also like that they tested the SMB implementation and found it wasn't the fastest. Could it have been Samba that was faster?!

Our customers don't like change.

[buggered]

The Licensing 6 program was announced nearly two years ago, and there was a big stink about it. Customers weren't happy. Has that subsided? And do you foresee any further changes?

I think we've learned a lot from the experience, and I think the most important thing is the lesson of consistency.

Microsoft wants as much of their customers money as possible. That's been pretty consistent

Most of the issue was that the new thing was different than the old thing. What we learned is that customers don't want us to change things very often.

Oh yeah! I'll bet they would have gotten a real firestorm of complaints if they had changed the licensing so that it cost their customers half as much.

Ballmer's an embarassment, MS should hire al Sahaf

[Vengeance]

He'd never make a boner like admitting this:

Printing, for example, requires all the graphics subsystems because we have the "what you see is what you get" model.

Did anyone else laugh as hard as I did reading that? Can you imagine a system that cannot do printing because it can't render graphics? This goes beyond tangled. This is criminally bad design.

Ballmer makes FUD fun!

[mao che minh]

1. "We have competed with things that had no price attached with them before."

Rough translation: "We have used our monopoly status to unjustly defeat competition before, even those that were forced to release their software for free. We haven't figured out how to do that to Linux."

2. "Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in."

A distributed environment of thousands of creative developers, from volunteers to huge corporate contributors like IBM and Sun can't innovate? Ballmer is confusing innovation with "buying companies that made something new and then calling it ours, and then crafting the software in a manner that insures customers continue spending money (and in greater lump sums)."

3. "Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old."

I thought Ballmer was done using that blatant untruth. It is clear that Linux is a completely different operating system then UNIX, and is developed in a completely different way, with entirely different strengths. Ballmer is still a FUD afficianado.

4. "The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality. There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that."

Ballmer still clearly doesn't understand the concept of the open source development model, is still not used to the concept of competition.

5. "If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer...."

That statement is truly laughable. Even people that are only vaguely famailar with the consistency of Windows and Linux software upgrades, patches, and hot fixes would scoff at that claim.

Re:Ballmer makes FUD fun!

[Malcontent]

All your rebutalls can be summed up by one simple sentence.

Steve Ballmer is a liar.

I figured the rest of the world would have figured it by now but apparently not.

This man is a habitual and pathalogical liar as are the rest of the MS execs.

I believe that is spelled

[burgburgburg]

Jebus

20+ years old?

[autopr0n]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.

20+ years old hrm, Windows 1.0 was released on November 10, 1983, making windows just 6.5 months short of being 20 years old.

Of course, the internals are totally different now, but then so are the internals of Linux to the original UNIX code...

Re:20+ years old?

[RealAlaskan]

... Windows 1.0 was released on November 10, 1983 [microsoft.com], making windows just 6.5 months short of being 20 years old.

By that standard, Linux is about 10 years old.

Ballmer seems to have been saying that Linux is a clone of 20 year-old Unix. Balmer's standard is a very different one.

DOS was a CPM clone, and NT was a VMS clone. By Balmer's standard, Windows and NT are both clones of 25+ year-old OS's. We could be charitable, and say that it's the GUI that matters in Windows (goodness knows there's nothing else there!). In that case, it's a clone of the Mac. Or a clone of the GUI which ran on the C64. Or that research project at Xerox Park. We're talking a clone of something 30+ years old now.

Maybe Balmer better just drop this one.

Re:20+ years old?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, the internals are totally different now, but then so are the internals of Linux to the original UNIX code..."

Oh PUH-leeeze. Another blow-hard with too little work to do (and too much money for lack-of-brains).

When was the last time you worked with Unix source, Einstein?

Re:20+ years old?

[bmajik]

I'm sure you've seen the internals of the windows 2k3 code and the windows 1.0 code, thusly qualifying you to make that statement ?

I also assume you're qualified to comment on the internals of a unix kernel, linux specifically. Please comment on the major changes between UTSSE (7th edition) and Linux, as i see that minix and then UTSSE are linux's predecessors.

I'll be waiting for your report.

And Windows NT/XP is a clone....

[crivens]

And Windows NT/XP is a clone of VNS, which is donkeys years old. I can't believe he can spout this crap and have people believe him.

And to want to create a command line only version of Windows? Well isn't that taking the server industry back to the 60s? Oh wait no, that would be if he were commenting about Linux, Unix or VMS. Because it's a Microsoft product he's talking about, he can spin any negative into a major positive. Watch those share prices rise!!

I vote Steve Ballmer for the new post of Iraqi Information Minister! He talks just as much crap, so why not?

Command line server....

[OrbNobz]

They even have a name picked out for it.
They call it "DOS".
I'm told it is not pronounced like the Spanish "Dos" however. It's more
of a short O sound like the O in "Dog".
Where DO these guys come up with these NEW innovative ideas???
I sure wish our open source community could do that... ;)

- OrbNobz
Well, it was either that, or "Terminals", but that sounds fatalistic.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

blahblahblah...

[icebattle]

Ballmer: blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

Does this guy have NOTHING insightful to say? Good god, man, get a grip.

He's British?!!?

[buckminster]

From the Rob Short Interview:

One person I have working for me actually used to be a hacker -- he's British -- and we persuaded him there was a career to be had.

He goes on to explain how Microsoft built a team of MS hackers to hack their own system. He never explains why it was important that the guy was British. I suppose doing so might divulge too much about some important new MS security protocol.

Re:He's British?!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly /.'er - to us Americans we see the British as the ultimate double agent spy, as in 007 for example. Such a reference to our Hollywood programmed thoughts only serves to add credence to his statement. Of course this psychological trick actually works best on PHB's and above.

03 is closer to CLI

[nurb432]

Its not there yet, but id say a lot ( 80%? ) of the GUI has direct command line replacements with the same functionality.

Much more then previous versions..

Its an Incremental advancement, playing catchup of what customers hve been asking for some time, that the unix world always had.

Speaking of 2-decade-old clones

[banky]

Quoth Ballmer:Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

Hmmm... Perhaps he should read this article, wherein the similarities between NT and VMS are brought to light. VMS 1.0 came out in 1977, according to the article.

In summary, glass houses, stones, etc.

Re:Speaking of 2-decade-old clones

[SuiteSisterMary]

The guy who wrote a lot of NT also wrote a lot of VMS. But NT was not designed to be a VMS-alike.

Substance

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does every interview that Steve Ballmer gives lack substance. I would like an interviewer to ask Steve to back up his assertions with evidence. For instance when Steve says, "If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.' " is absolutely false. Anyone that can pick up a phone and call IBM, Redhat, etc. will find out that they offer support for Linux. Plus, there is lots of free support, albeit less formal, and the fact that you have the source allows you to fix the problem yourself. The open source model and Linux are not perfect but it is hypsters and FUD masters like Steve that give all software a bad name.

developers?

[dextr0us]

Steve ballmer is the obviously the best choice of person to talk to about their product.... not the

DEVELOPERS ! developers !
DEVELOPERS ! developers !
DEVELOPERS !
because steve ballmer loves this company, yeah.

they got the whole command line thing wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux heads dont like linux because of the command line, they like it because it doesnt suck! Microsoft does do a bit of innovation here and there, they have defined office software in many ways to many people, but to say that these innovations are really as good as they could be is questionable. I just dont like using their stuff, im quite biased. I run a vanilla red hat install with open office at work, every time I get near someone's windows XP or 2000 desktop I find myself using anger management techniques to avoid banging on the keyboard or striking the screen while I wait for Windows to do SOMETHING in response to some input. Why does clicking on a folder in explorer have to lock up the window for 30s?

I thought we skimmed it all from Microsoft

[Drinian]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

What happened to the, "They're skimming all our good stuff" rant before? Does he mean Linux is a clone of DOS?

BTW, new doesn't mean better. In the words of Scotty, "The more they overhaul the plumbing, the eaiser it is to stop up the drain." Language was invented a long time ago. Still working fine last time I checked.

Depends on the Area

[Prien715]

The comment about innovation is both accurate and innacurate. Linux, not being primarily a desktop OS, has done little to revolutionize the desktop. Even Taco said at one point said about a new MS product "Now we know the interface we need to clone." OSS software has done wonders for the internet though and we've seen innovation there. Apache anyone? (However, if you want real innovation on the desktop, check out OSX.)

CLI only? Don't bother, M$

[MattW]

What he's missing when he discusses a CLI version is that it works for Linux and unix because it is elegantly simple. I remember a long time ago reading Microsoft's comparison of NT to Unix. And they listed a bullet point that went something like: "Unix stores its configuration is flat text files in random locations in the filesystem. Windows stores all configuration data in one central repository called a 'Registry'". Whereas from my perspective it could have been more aptly described: "Unix stores definitive configuration information is precisely defined and well documented locations, discrete for each application, where NT stores all configuration information in a poorly understand, unauditable, unstable single point of failure called a 'Registry'."

Like many so call 'innovations', Windows continues to be built for different reasons than Linux, at least from my perspective. Windows is built for ease of use, ease of administration, and ease of development -- I'd say performance, but I think in most cases the 'performance' it is built for is benchmarks. Unix (linux especially) is built for performance, reliability, and control. Yes, control. It is the design decisions which yield as much control as possible to the user, administrator, and developer which make the CLI naturally effective. Not that Windows couldn't have an improved CLI, but he seems to think that a CLI is the ease of use, whereas really, the CLI is merely a reflection of the design, and ease of use is something you get when you give the user and admin more power at the expense of a higher learning curve.

Re:Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI

[Anonymous Coward]

Forward 20
Turn Right 90
Forward 30
Click ...

perhaps we need a LOGO resurgence!

Ballmer, hon!

[manduwok]

I saw the title and immediately thought of my hometown vicinity and -- ask any Maryland local, and they will tell you: "It's Ballmer, not Baltimore... HON!"

I don't know, myself.

[Crapflooder Supreme]

Could someone please give a list of real, tangible, impactful innovations by both Microsoft and the Open Source community? I'm having trouble listing any by either side, actually.

Pick apart the arguments all you want

[stratjakt]

But show me the innovation in the open source community. Show me a completely unique must-have product that has come out of open source. Everything is focused on cloning existing systems, there is no R&D.

Since 1992 I've seen windows evolve from Window for workgroups 3.11 to Windows 2003. I've seen linux and XFree86 stay pretty much the same functionally.

Userland apps like samba, apache etc are great, but the purpose they serve is to emulate/recreate/clone some existing behavior from another OS.

The good side of it is that linux isnt just cloning Windows, but other UNIXes and Mac OS/X, so (in theory) the best functionality is cloned from each. But it's not innovation, it's derivation.

Re:Pick apart the arguments all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

And what new "killer" technology was introduced from 3.11 to 2003? What amazing innovation was put into Windows that wasn't just pulled over from another OS?

Re:Pick apart the arguments all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

NTFS

Preemptive multitasking

DirectX

ActiveDirectory

CIFS

Terminal Services

(just off the top of my head)

Re:Pick apart the arguments all you want

[fymidos]

You seem to have carefully selected those, so i have to say it:

There is no functionality there that hasn't been in Unix (and linux for the most part) for years.

How is this "innovative" again? It's not enough to be something new for windows u know...

20 Year Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

Verses windows which is a clone of an operating system that is 15-plus years old? What a ridiculous argument.

Quote of the day

[mcrbids]

The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality.

'Nuff said.

He's admitting it!

[SquareOfS]

Quoth the Ballmer:

If you put Office on a PC, it can be one-third of the material cost of the system. Is that sustainable?
...
I think what we need to make sure of is customer perception of value versus competitive offerings.

This is what Microsoft either (a) figured out first or (b) did the best job of taking advantage of: three components to pricing.

1. Actual value
2. Perceived value
3. Available alternatives

Therefore, manipulate the perception of value (OpenSource will eat your children!) and make sure that the number of available alternatives approaches zero awful damn quick.

I think, read as a whole, this question constitutes an admission that they are fully committed to the unsustainability of the pricing on Office until one of these three conditions changes.

Ballmer (essentially) said he's fully willing to have the relative pricing of Office compared to a computer not just stay at 1/3 but to have no inherent relationship to the price of anything else (I smell a user-level subscription model . . .) because once you cross conditions 2 and 3, there's no limit.

Time to contribute to OpenOffice, methinks.

Microsoft OS names

[hey]

Are they trying to make everyone crazy.
First they used regular versions numbers:

- Windows 1
- Windows 2
- Windows3.1
- Windows3.1 for workgroups
- NT 4

Then we got:
- Windows 95 ... so we figure they'd use years (of course the Y2K issue was there)
OK, here comes:
- Windows 98

Then we get meaningless letters:
- Windows ME ... so we figure they'd use letters

But then we get:
- Windows 2000 ... OK they are going with years.

But then we get:
- Windows XP ... OK so we are going back to meaningless letters

But then we get:
- Windows 2003

Ouch.

Re:Microsoft OS names

[Joe U]

The new rule is:

Servers get numbers
Workstations get Letters

Windows Millennium Edition
Windows eXPerience
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2003 Server

Office gets a random character generator or something.

And 'Visual Studio .NET XP 2003 v2.0 Enterprise Special Value Edition for ISVs Featuring Visual C++ 8.0 Based on NT Technology' is due any week now, but they need a bigger box to fit the name.

Re:Microsoft OS names

[ExoticMandibles]

In case you were trying for a complete list, here are the ones you forgot:

Windows/386
Windows 3.0

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51

Windows 95 OSR2
Windows 98 SE

Also, what you list as "Windows 3.1 for Workgroups" was officially titled "Windows for Workgroups", but internally it was actually Windows 3.11. And Windows NT 4 didn't come out until 1996, after Windows 95. And "Windows 1" was just called "Windows" at the time.

Finally, ME is an acronym for "Millenium Edition", and XP is a contraction of Experience.

Re:Microsoft OS names

[Anonymous Coward]

>Servers get numbers
>Workstations get Letters

Maybe its more accurate to say "consumer" instead of "workstation".
Still, I thought they were trying to merge them.

Money

[Kenshiro]

Are you happy with the growth of Xbox? Yes. We're a clear No. 2 in the market. We are coming on strong. It is probably going to take us another turn of the crank, from a product cycle perspective, before we make money. But most of the things we do as a company successfully today we worked at for years before they made money.

Boy, how many companies wish they could do this?

Re:Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI

[Anonymous Coward]

It will if they want any 3rd party programs to work on it.

insane crack monkey

[doggo]

C'mon, you've seen the video. How can you take anything this guy has to say seriously. He's so obviously a corporate shill. He's the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf of the computer world.

Bagdad Bob

[Rock]

Too bad Bagdad Bob's job is no more. Redmond Steve could give him a real run for his money!

Re:Bagdad Bob

[Rock]

(... really strange that messages 5809480 and 5809481 would post consecutively.)

Who wants to see a new site --

Bagdad Bob and Redmond Steve
Separated at Birth?

It could be a simple two-column page with quotes from each, um, innovater.

Innovation

[RickHunter]

Thinking about this, he seems to be accurate on one point - there hasn't been much UI innovation in the open-source community. (And after all, everyone knows that's all that matters!) There has been a lot of innovation in other areas, mostly places the user doesn't see but which improve the overall experience. Things like operating system internals, file-distribution protocols (BitTorrent), server architecture (look at Apache, and all the stuff they do!), build tools, programming languages, software packaging/installation, software frameworks, compression algorithms, file formats, system administration tools... And that's just off the top of my head.

There's definitely room for improvement. Look at the noises coming out from Microsoft about their next-generation database filesystem. Coders who are interested in filesystems should be looking at that and thinking "how can this be done better?" Or .Net - instead of marching to Microsoft's drum, "we" should be asking "how can we do this better?" And there's always the UI and graphics infrastructure issue...

One problem is that a lot of OSS projects (UI ones, mostly) have moved away from the Unix philosophy: small, simple, dedicated programs that do a job well and can be connected with simple tools to perform complex tasks. Sure, you can feed data from one program into another with modern GUIs, but it typically requires a lot of user intervention and the programs are usually monolithic blobs of functionality. Find a way to escape from that limitation, and develop a graphical equivalent to pipes and I/O redirection, and you'll have some real innovation.

Oh yeah, and there's one little open-source innovation he seems to be forgetting about. Its this minor, inconsequential technology that no-one cares about or uses, called "the Internet".

Last Question Sums It Up For Me

[Captain Rotundo]

Basically, I realize I am not an IT department, and the company I have purchasing influence at wouldn't even qualify as a wart on the ass of a company MS cares about, but hear me out:

The Licensing bit is really all that matters to me. I don't 'license' software, I don't 'license' any media. I buy it.

I refuse to accept the legitimacy of EULAs or any other licensing terms. Because of this I will ignore them when I have to until I am forced to otherwise.

Since I think its ridiculus to buy a product and then post-purchase agree to terms that are restricting I try to avoid it at all costs. In the few cases that I don't I'll use the software as I see fit and wait for a court to force me to do otherwise.

This is why I like the GPL. This is why I use the GPL. No one is asked to accept a license agreement, regardless of its validity, unless they want to do things that require extra permissions. Simple easy to remember concept, basically "I can do whatever I like and consult the GPL when common sense tells me I need to"

I know what you thinking, that this "common sense" isn't common, that I should accept licensing terms for all uses of all media. I contest that its an obvious boundary from running Visual FoxPro (or whatever) on any hardware/software combo I see fit, to giving away copies to other people. This boundary IS common sense in my view, and an added bonus of the GPL is that in dealing with this extra rights it wont let someone curtail future uses with a changed license (again regardless of the legitimacy of said license).

This doesn't even touch on the available source issue, which, while I personally have only used the source from a small percentage of the software I use, gives an added security knowing that in all likely-hood at least a few other people have glanced at the authors code and not publicly complaigned :)

So to sum it up, I don't agree to the legitimacy of licenses tacked on to products I purchase. Because of this I will A) Aviod having to use products with them, B) Ignore them where I see fit in a minor act of 'civil disobediance' - not to be confused with violating any common sense applications of so called 'copyright'

Windows command prompt?

[Xpilot]

Bah, every command prompt Microsoft has come up with is retarded. Billions of dollars in the bank, and they couldn't come up with something more decent.

Re: Another outright lie:

[Surak]

Another one:

If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'


Actually, they can and in some cases, maybe they do. Duh. They HAVE THE SOURCE, and more importantly, the RIGHT TO MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE THE MODIFIED VERSION. If the change affects enough customers, or big enough customers, then they probably will make the change to the code. This is no different than in a closed source model really, except that anyone can make the change.

Obviously Mr. Balmer can't separate the ideas of Open Source and *ahem* Shared Source.

Blah blah. Whine cry cry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows says it's better. Oh no! Everyone defend Linux. Post Post Post. Ok, good job guys, we told them!

The Linux community should put its money where its mouth is. It talks a lot of shit, but where are the results? I'm not saying there aren't any, but you sure as fuck aren't making a difference here.

Open Source never made that claim

[One Louder]

Ballmer is setting up a straw man.

It's Microsoft that has been (ab)using the word "innovation" for the last couple of years as a differention, and indeed, as defense for their criminal actions. The Open Source, and particularly the Linux movement has never been, and has never claimed, to be about "innovation" in the choice of technologies used.

The true "innovation" in Open Source is the distribution license and the culture that has risen around it.

However, if you'd like to see real innovation in the Open Source community, see what Alan Kay's doing with Squeak.

Re:Open Source never made that claim

[WetCat]

this is not an innovation at all, this is only a recreation of an old Smalltalk-80 and its virtual machine. Old stuff just being redone.

Re:Open Source never made that claim

[One Louder]

I didn't say "look at Squeak". I said "look at what Alan Kay's doing with Squeak". Big difference.

Even Alan says that the language and the particular implementation are not hugely interesting - just a tool to accomplish something else.

Re:Web Services Development

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this tripe down...there are websites for this, and this ain't one of them.

Ballmer was also quoted as saying..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wooooooooooh! Yeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaggghh!!!! Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooooot! HOOT yaaaaaaaaieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! COME ON!!! REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" followed by several minutes of exasperated panting and profuse sweating.

Yo Ballmer

[fobbman]

"...our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community"

Sorry dude, but Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf does that schtick that you're doing now MUCH better. Must be in the delivery. Keep working on it, though.

Arriving late on the Windows scene

[melonman]

I've been various non-MS OSs for 20 years, and running a Linux-only cybercafe for 18 months. I installed my first Windows server last week. W2K Server (yeah yeah, I know, it took me 6 months to get round to installing it...).

I haven't seen anything radically innovative yet, but then I'm not sure that there is much radically innovative about Linux either. But I have had a few surprises:

• On balance, installing W2K server is about as easy as installing Linux. It's certainly easier than installing Redhat 9 in France, as Redhat refuses to use my French keyboard (is this the action Colin Powell was threatening the other day?)
• Terminal Server is very slick. The interface feels like Redhat, only finished. I can get from one of my ltsp terminals into a Windows session in one mouse click. Unlike X, W2K doesn't lose the customers' data if the terminal connection goes down, and it works quite happily over a phone line. The only thing I don't like is 8-bit displays, but apparently Server 2003 has fixed that.
• On the other hand, I am surprised to find that IE seems to fall over on about as many sites as Mozilla (though not the same ones)

Doing everything with the mouse is driving me mad, but I expect I could get used to it. I don't see me ditching Linux as a result of the experiment, but some sites, especially chat ones, run ten times faster than with Linux on equivalent hardware, and don't keep hanging.

All of which is to say that I have now met with the enemy, and it doesn't seem quite as bad as the anti-MS propaganda suggests, and even has a few endearing features...

Re:Arriving late on the Windows scene

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which is to say that I have now met with the enemy, and it doesn't seem quite as bad as the anti-MS propaganda suggests

There are two major contributing factors to the "anti-MS propoganda".

Firstly, the sheer amount of marketing, in particular marketing based upon half-truths and designed to mislead, needs to be corrected. Microsoft is basically lying to the public, and every time they do so, they should be caught out.

Secondly, because of its market share, most IT professionals have to deal with Windows far more than they should. This means that the glaring problems are going to get on your nerves fairly quickly. This isn't a problem elsewhere, as when something gets on an open-source developer's nerves, he has the ability to fix it - and share those fixes.

So yes, Microsoft does get judged harshly for defects. But it's a massive company, with a massive bank balance - so they should be able to do better than the mess they usually put out.

Amusing misunderstanding

[rcw-work]

From the article:

We'll be able to patch probably two thirds of the components without shutting the system down. That's an area where the Unix guys are ahead of us, because of the way they do redirection -- they can patch a file and then change the symbolic link. That's an area where we've got a problem, and we'll fix it in the near future when possible.

You can patch a file in use on UNIX without shutting down because you can delete an open file and the applications will still be able to map/read/write to that inode, which will magically disappear when the last application closes it.

Example:

• Application starts using libc.so.
  
• Admin runs mv libc.so-new libc.so.
  
• Application continues to use the old libc.so, which now has no filename.
  
• Application exits.
  
• Kernel marks the inode that the old libc.so was using as free.
  

Symlinks are cool, and it would have been nice if Microsoft implemented Shortcuts at the file system level, but they aren't what save us from rebooting.

Re:Amusing misunderstanding

[apsmith]

Well, you're right Ballmer got it wrong - but in a sense what's happening with a file in use under UNIX is sort of what happens with a hard link (not a sym link), not that you see many these days. With a hard link you have two file names that point to the same file by creating two directory entries pointing to the same inode (a sym link just creates a directory entry pointing to another filename, rather than an inode). With the hard link, the file doesn't get deleted unless both directory entries are removed. What you're talking about is the addition of open files in processes to the list of indoes treated in this manner. So I'd say Ballmer wasn't really all that far off either...

Re:Amusing misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Symlinks are cool, and it would have been nice if Microsoft implemented Shortcuts at the file system level, but they aren't what save us from rebooting.

FYI, hard links are available in the NTFS file system.

Take a look here.

Re:Amusing misunderstanding

[ipfwadm]

So I'd say Ballmer wasn't really all that far off either...

I would disagree. Here's what Ballmer said again:
That's an area where the Unix guys are ahead of us, because of the way they do redirection -- they can patch a file and then change the symbolic link.

I interpreted that comment as referring to the convention of symlinking, for instance, libjpeg.so to libjpeg.so.6 to libjpeg.so.6.0.1. If libjpeg needs to be upgraded, just create libjpeg.so.6.0.2 and change your symlinks. However, as the original poster said, the ability to patch without rebooting really has nothing to do with this.

Re:Amusing misunderstanding

[KJKHyperion]

You can patch a file in use on UNIX without shutting down because you can delete an open file and the applications will still be able to map/read/write to that inode, which will magically disappear when the last application closes it.

I estimate that, at the kernel level, it's a matter of commenting out a single line to make that work consistently on Windows (where an application can request that a file can't be deleted - which is, nowadays, ridicolous, but you'll see that also MacOSX supports this behavior). At the application level it's an entirely different matter - it may or may not be enough to solve the problem, because most Windows applications are notorious for being complex houses of cards that make undocumented assumptions about their environment

He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The open source community didn't produce Bob or Security holes for e-mail viruses. Microsoft has copied or bought everything in sight. Yup, they wrote the code, but IE was a response to Mosaic/Netscape. IIS was an attempt to beat NCSA's httpd. Excel was a Lotus killer. C# was an attempt to create a Java that Sun didn't control. Windows was a response to the Mac GUI. DOS, they just bought. BASIC was invented at Dartmouth.

Microsoft has made some great products and some real dogs. But innovation is not their strong suit as a company. They are in the business of creating mass-market software. You don't get innovative with fast food.

example of innovation ...

[kousik]

putting the full-stop *before* NET.

It isn't that no one owns OSS, it's that we all do

[autopr0n]

So when it comes to development models, you're claiming the edge? If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'

Yeah, except you actualy can go to IBM and ask them to put that feature in. Or you can go to redhat, and ask them to do it. Or they could put it in themselves. Hell, they could have me do it if they were really desperate. That's what makes open source what it is. Anyone can make changes.

'not in the home'

[BHearsum]

WTF is Ballmer on. 4 years ago i paid $2500 for a P2 system. I can get a PIV, or Athlon XP system for less than $1000 now. How the hell can he tell me that prices havn't gone down? What about Walmart's PCs. Cheapest things I've ever seen.

(CDN funds btw)

Re:'not in the home'

[Anonymous Coward]

you big dummy...prices haven't gone down. The TOP OF THE LINE PC is still about the same amount of $$$ that it was 5 years ago.

BUT...as newer things come out, older stings get cheaper to get RID of them. This in the world of finance is known as SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

silly boy....

Sadly, he's right.

[Junks Jerzey]

First, "open source community" needs to be clarified. I'm reading this as "Linux kernel, drivers, X11, Window managers, and desktop environments." In short, what repesents the OS to the user. "Open source" as a generic term is much too broad, because there are many open source projects for Windows, for example.

Back to the topic. Linux innovation hasn't been innovation as much as just getting things to a usable point. KDE has finally gotten very nice, where it's as comfortable to use as Windows 2000. There are finally better drivers for doing things 3D. There are some promising web browser projects that are moving away from the mess that Mozilla has become. But this is not innovation. This is simply what users expect.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has been more daring. They're attempting break free of the Win32 legacy with .net, even going for processor independence at the same time. Sure, Java and many other virtual machines have attempted this, but not at the OS level. *Relatively* speaking, this is a bigger attempt at simplification and moving into the future than what we've seen happening with Linux. And as much as I don't want to like C#, it's a spot-on design. It's like making a much enhanced version of Delphi be the standard method of developing applications, and it's going to get rid of all the confusion about MFC, Visual Basic-specific forms, and so on. From a language design viewpoint, C# is more solid and pragmatic than Java.

For unknown reasons, Linux seems to attract conservative thinkers. Any time replacing X11 comes up, there will be vehement advocates insisting that It Is The Way and that we shouldn't replace something that works. And so it goes. Twenty years from now we'll still be using X11.

Re:Sadly, he's right.

[GMFTatsujin]

Microsoft, on the other hand, has been more daring. They're attempting break free of the Win32 legacy with .net, even going for processor independence at the same time. Sure, Java and many other virtual machines have attempted this, but not at the OS level. *Relatively* speaking, this is a bigger attempt at simplification and moving into the future than what we've seen happening with Linux

Netscape, anyone? By extension, Mozilla?

From the Microsoft Minister of Information

[utahjazz]

Responding to a question about how MS software is now a huge portion of the cost of a PC because of drops in hardware prices, Balmer says:

And I also don't think hardware prices have come down, at least at the client. Hardware prices have not come down significantly in a number of years

I guess his point is that hardware gets better, not cheaper. But, seriously, I can get 512 MB memory for $80. Try that a 'number of years' ago. If that is not 'prices coming down', what is?

Wintoo server 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

boostrap back to 1981, with Wintoo.
Wintoo takes the mature 25 year old msdos codebase, and modernises it with larrythecow.sys from gentoo corporation

Based on MSDOS 10 with i986 optimisations, with a tiny 50Gb hyper-ultra-mega-forked-threaded 128 bit mshttpd.

All you need is a 5.25 (feet) floppy and 500 years to bootsrap the stage one tarball.
Your server will be soooo fast then! Support 0.5% more connections before you get slashdotted!

I was in sales a coupla years...

[zogger]

...and dang, it was decent money but I just despised it. All the uber leet sales guys talked just like this Ballmer guy, whatever they are selling, it gets to be so "cultish" they can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. Their manure has no odor and the other guy's is covered with flies.

I think when you get to the point you are as brainwashed as this guy that you need serious therapy. He may be a billionaire,but it doesn't mean he isn't rubber room crazy.

He's desperate, suffering from paranoid delusions of grandeur and megalomania, you can tell that from his sentence structure and tone, let alone the words.

What I got out of this interview is that microsoft has seen the light and is now seriously running scared. It didn't seem like it before to me, but now I can see it. They won't intellectually admit it, but their actions speak otherwise, it's like someone living in a high crime ghetto and not moving when deep down they know they should, but thinking they will be safer with another lock on the door, when they already have 5 of them installed. The race is still on, but they are dragging butt now. They are having to resort to tricks like lobbying to make open source illegal, or get countries and corporations and governments to not even look at it. That's a serious desperation move. It wouldn't even be attempted by them if they weren't scared, and I mean scared.

Even his demonization attempts are transparent, using the obvious buzzword "communism" sure to get the appropriate knee jerk reaction from jerks who allow their knees to get thwacked.That word was carefully picked, no other word like that strikes fear into any CEO, no way does he want his golf buddies to even *think* he might have once even read it. I bet microsoft sales people use that word constantly in all their raps now, probably under orders. Bet one dollah on that. I'm surprised he didn't just say "terrorism", seems to be the new 1337 speak from scandal plagued politicians and CEO's when they want to quick change the subject.

People talk about open source being a "cult"....well, if you want to see cult like behavior, re-read that article. That's a serious dangerous cult true believer, absolutely no doubt of that. Makes the next ayatollah or TV preacher look like an atheist.

Free and Open source is the BEST idea to come down the computer pike EVER. Can it get better? Sure! Is it perfect? No! I doubt you'd see many proponents say that. Does it kick butt on closed source, and is it catching up fast in most areas, and will it over take it and change paradigms? Yes,yes it will, unless it's actually made *illegal* by these rich cultists using bribes and threats and buying governments and mandating what is in essence "microsoft solutions" and disguising it as "security" and "trusted"..

The net and computers and IT are not about one company being the dominant player for ever and ever, that has NEVER worked in any other industry ever invented by mankind, and so far, what they have done just goes to show that that universal principle still holds true.

Rome never appeared stronger until right before it collapsed, when they so much believed their own hype they couldn't see "heathen" reality staring at them. They even resorted to the same sort of demonization efforts.

It's too bad to see what happens to people once pure raw greed takes over their lives, and becomes in essence their religion.

I am certainly way down the list on slashdot for "yearly income", but tell ya what, I would not trade my life for this ballmer guy's, despite his power and money. There's more to life than greed, too bad he never learned that lesson when he was a kid. And greed coupled with insanity? I feel sorry for him in a way. Not a lot, but some.

attack of the clones

[phrantic]

Irrespective of whether the statement he made about Linux being a clone or not,
Linux unlike windows exposes itself on a daily basis to the entire "distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in" that at the very least ensure that the product will be as robust and as secure as possible.
The only innovation that Microsoft have invested in since windows NT came out 10 years (?)ago is to knock the corners of their dialog boxes, and go all funky with the colours,giving use the "Fischer Price: Windows Version.

Speaking of funky and "innovation" don't get me started on Microsofts inovative apporach to licensing...

Do people really want innovation?

[Alex]

Most people want an OS that meets their needs and does that in a predicatable fashion.

This innovation stuff microsoft constantly throw at us is the stuff that Microsofties bang on about, but that no one uses in production for 5 years because "it'll be much faster/more stable/etc/etc in the next version" (ie - great idea, shit implimentation).

Alex

DosXP

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft developing a command-line only server?

Lemme guess.... Dos XP?

Circular reasoning

[debrain]

'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'

Perhaps they haven't seen innovation from the open source community precisely because they are customers locked in to Microsoft products?

At least it is carefully worded so as to be potentially truthful.

Alleged Innovation

[jonathonc]

Here's an interesting review of Microsoft's 'Hall of Innovation'. The only accepted nominations so far appear to be Microsoft Bob and The Talking Paper Clip. How impressive.

Disclaimer: This is a 'Boycott Microsoft' site and I'm not sure when it was last updated. Good reading all the same.

Oooh you people kill me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, MS and the products that run on Windows make an administrators life SO MUCH EASIER.

You use the example of MySQL? OK - great, it's free and performs well...maybe better than SQL2000. How do you back it up?

TAR it right? Your average administrator might not know how to use TAR. Your average administrator might not know that you have to STOP MySQL to back it up. They might just TAR the whole OS and think that that's enough to backup...but you know it's not. Not for ANY service that runs on Linux.

NOW - show me a GUI utility like BackupExec, or or ArcServe, or even NTBackup, that will backup everything that needs to easily and report in an easy to understand way that the backup FAILED or not.

Linux is powerful - Apache is better than ANY IIS server - MySql is great and free - sendmail started everything and is still working great - but taking care of these systems takes great care and great knowledge. Most companies are cutting their IT staff to save dollars, and M$ could certainly help that by lowering their software cost, but they don't.

Take Linux into a shop that is doing this (cutting staff to save $$), and you REALLY REALLY need more people to take care of it....or the people that you get need to be much more highly paid than an average M$ admin that makes between 35-45k.

This is business - people want easy. Linux is not easy. It performs well, but get it more manageable and I think this might work.

I'm NOT a die hard M$ admin. I explore the alternatives and run many different flavors of Linux. But I'm in the business of putting servers up to do jobs and not have to do backflips to get them backed up, keep them running, fine tune them, etc...

Let's face it. M$ has this market LOCKED and until Linux gets a little more friendly, it just AIN'T cutting it.

I applaud the innovations though. Band together, form ONE LINUX instead of 10, and make some admin tools that are a little easier to swallow, and I think Linux might stand a chance against M$. Otherwise, people just don't want to deal with the complexities. I work to have a better life, not to have more work that is more complex and taking AWAY from my personal time.

He sucks at history too.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system

What a moron, Steve doesn't even seem to know that unix is a 30+ year old system, not just 20+.

Re:He sucks at history too.

[MrResistor]

What a moron, Steve doesn't even seem to know that unix is a 30+ year old system, not just 20+.

He also doesn't know what year Windows 1 came out. They announced it in 1983 (and allegedly had a pre-1.0 demo available), but it wasn't actually released until August 1985.

But hey, it's not as if we didn't already know he was a moron...

kioslaves?

[oliverthered]

KDE has some good inovations in it, kioslaves , so that any [kde] application can access any uri without any extra work.

KDE is becoming a nice intergrated desktop, sure kparts are playing catch up with com(activex), but the KDE team are intergrating things far better and far more consistantly than windows. That is inovation in a piece meal, badly taken over and clobbered together windows world.

Hardware to Software Cost Comparison

[oaf357]

I don't think Ballmer had his facts right on that one. A year ago there were no 200 GB IDE hard drives. Now there is and I can get one under $200. A year ago a 2 GHz processor was quite a pretty penny. Now, the prices are making them quite affordable. A sub $1,000 powerhouse PC can be built today but to use Microsoft products on it increases the price to about $1500. Very interesting question with a "don't look there" answer from Mr. Ballmer. Typical.

Can't develop on Linux? WTF?

[gosand]

So when it comes to development models, you're claiming the edge?

If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'

Man, if he wants to argue that the closed development model is better, that is arguable. But to make the arguments he made? WTF?! IBM can't code a Linux solution for a customer? That is the whole point of OSS, they are able to do it. Or you can hire someone else. What is the deal with this statement:

IBM: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'

This is so absolutely FALSE. It couldn't be more false. Compare it with this, which is 100% true:

MS: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we won't do it. And neither will you.'

Damn, monkeyboy, you should really stop doing interviews.

Uhm.. a wheel ?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I designed a new wheel, it has a triangular shape. How's that for innovation.
I only have one little bug with my new wheel at the moment, but this should be fixed in the next service pack.

You insensitive clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

I _live_ in N. Finland.

Re:You insensitive clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it must be cold there now. I miss Finland - my parents are from Narpes and it feels like forever since I was there.

I have to wonder about your experiences...

[Svartalf]

Because I see two different media servers available for Linux- one costs money out the wazoo, the other costs nothing.

Darwin Streaming Server which supports QuickTime, MPEG4, and MP3 streaming.
RealNetworks Server which has supported Linux for some time, supports all Real media formats, MPEG4, etc.

In the case of the RealNetworks server, they have a free version that's crippled to 1Mbit bandwidth.

Now, it depends on when you tried this. If it was within the past few years, Darwin's streaming server has been available during that time. If it was before that, I can't understand as RealNetworks HAD a streaming server. Oh, I've figured it out, you wanted something that was "free". Sorry, the only free, uncrippled stuff as in "free beer" stuff has only shown up on the scene fairly recently.

If you did this in fairly recent times, all I can say is that you didn't try very hard. If you did this a while back, I will say that you pay for bandwidth capacity (and proportionately the same) in the case of RealNetworks' server and Microsoft's- and that there's really only players for Microsoft's on Windows. If you use the MS streaming server, forget supporting MacOS and Linux machines.

Heres innovation

[Foxxz]

Ok, dont ask why i did this, but i have my reasons. i doubt ill ever see windows do this.

mount an smb share
create a few empty files on mount
raid0 them together
format and mount raid
export raid mount via nfs
use ANOTHER linux box to redirect packets to another machine
make a vpn tunnel using ssh and pppd to another mahcine bouncing off the redirect
mount said nfs mount over vpn tunnel

so ha! linux is homer simpson and ms is ned flanders. homer is screaming "screw flanders!"

Re:Heres innovation

[easter1916]

Wow! You are just the man! May I have your autograph?

Re:Heres innovation

[Foxxz]

mmmmmmm autographs... hhhhhsssggg

NT started as a Comand Line Interface

[Grrreat]

NT was started out as a CLI OS. Later from work that had done with IBM and OS2 they decided to add the win api to the mix and call it Windows NT.

Re:What about the positives aspects of the intervi

[Anonymous Coward]

understand this to be the admission that Samba was faster than any SMB server MS had in the past, right?

No, not at all, this is your zealot misinterpretation of what he said. There are dozens of implementations of SMB.

He's talking about the creation of NetBEUI here, comparing it to Novell and IBMs versions of SMB.

AFAIK, all of this predates samba.

Btw, samba is the SLOWEST smb implementation there is. Go looking through the docs and faqs and you'll even find the samba team admitting this, and some kludges and hacks to "tweak" it.

Re:Ballmer's an embarassment, MS should hire al Sa

[NullProg]

Can you imagine a system that cannot do printing because it can't render graphics?

I hate defending Microsoft, but the way the printer/display interface is implimented under windows is second to none. The GDI abstracts away alot of work you would have to do to get WYSIWYG printouts. I have yet to see a Linux API handle this the way MS does. Hell, none of the Linux programming books I own even have chapters on printing.

Enjoy,

Time to strategize

[sacrilicious]

Balmer: "...our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community"

Also: Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

So to sum this up: Balmer is going to demonstrate the innovative advantage of his company by producing a "command line interface". How could a command line interface be made work on a computer? What might it possibly look like? If we in the linux community do not want to be completely left behind, we'd better get together and figure out how we could possibly come up with such an interface and somehow integrate it into the OS. Time for some serious hacking! Stick it to the man!!

Re:Ballmer's an embarassment, MS should hire al Sa

[Crapflooder Supreme]

Well, what they should have done is base their display system on Display Postscript. Then they wouldn't have that little problem! (Display Postscript is an old decrepit trademark of Adobe Systems Inc.)

New mod category?

[Anonymous Coward]

May I suggest a new mod category of 'Bashing'. Sure some are slightly more 'Funny' than others, or slightly more 'Interesting' although today it seems very few are 'Informative' - but 'Bashing' definately seems to be the adjective of the day.

And considering the number of /. posts designed solely for the aforementioned category, it just seems common sense. Mod me up 'Troll' and then lets get us some more 'Bashing'.

I know I have!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has been playing catch-up for 5 years now and it's maybe at the level of Windows 95 as far as usability and reliability on the desktop (Still way behind on the apps) Another 5 years later it may be where windows is now.... maybe.

David vs Golaith

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out this David vs Goliath mentality seems to be a very bad idea for Open Source. Let me point out an example...

Sony releases PS2 Linux kit. It runs Linux, they designed it to. They setup a developer community playstation2-linux.com and pay people to staff it. "Wow," says slashdot, "I guess we don't need to do anything there." If you look at the ps2linux site there's almost no activity and the linux kit never sold out. The most active projects are the mozilla dude, compiled for your convenience which is those sony guys packing up binaries that compile on the PS2 with a simple ./configure make, and those BlackRhino people who are basically dumping a failed commercial product and probably not goign to work on it any more.

Microsoft releases the Xbox, it runs stripped down Win2k. Michael Robertson offers $200,000 US prize money run Linux on it. Highly complex hacks are developed such as the Xbox Media Players which tops the source forge activity list. People go WAY out of their way to hack Xbox to defeat Microsoft. There are dozens of Xbox hack community sites seemingly endorsed by the "community."

Oh, so when someone gives it to you it's not good enough, you've got to go and reinvent the wheel.

I'm going to say that's bullshit. The core developers have nothing to gain by "fighting" Microsof. If that's what's fueling this battle Linux is dead! The next generation isn't going to care about a fight against a company. Microsoft is hiring up new people and that old regime you hate will be gone and Linux's purpose for existence will be gone.

If Linux is about communism then just admit it. If it's about revenge, then it is doomed.

Re:David vs Golaith

[dbrutus]

When you get into large enough numbers, no group is monolithic. Linux supporters outgrew monolithic motivations a long time ago.

I think that Linux *is* about revenge for many, but not the way you think. I think that some companies want to screw their competitors by contributing to free software projects that replace major revenue streams for their competitors or are otherwise strategically important. That sort of thing exists as well as the conventional I hate MS stuff but also the 'scratch an itch' motivation and the 'give back to the community' motivation.

This multiplicity of motivation and the flexibility of the community structure that allows the power play people to happily coexist with the driver writers who do it for love is Linux's true core value.

Re:Linux itself is a clone of an operating system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absurd! Computers are a clone of the 66 year old Turing machine. See here.

Re:innovation or marketing - .NET a Java Clone

[let_freedom_ring]

"the .net "innovations" seems to have a lot in common with the stuff Novell was doing several years ago"

Actually, the C#/.NET platform is a ripoff of JAVA rather than Novell. MS Active directory is more of a ripoff of LDAP.

Ut-oh, looks like you're not a part of the crusade

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

I've got some good sized clients and they have exactly the same perspective. If you want to sell Linux to them, it has to be that it fits something they want to get accomplished, not just better, but vastly better than competing solutions. It's not their fault for having good judgment.
My logic follows:

Given:
You have a large number of MS users.
You have a large amount of MS support staff.
On a new project, you can spend:
$10k on an MS solution.
$3k on a Linux solution.
Where it is also true that:
Everyone on your support staff can administer the MS solution.
Only 10 percent of your support staff can administer the Linux solution.
Your support staff has 10 members.

What are you going to do? There are many other variables, but these are the ones that count to issue of moving your projects forward and having them remain viable. $40k employees are $110 bucks a day in salary alone. If you have a support staff of ten of the folk and over the course of the next couple months they will each spend 8 person-days making the adjustment and learning the new ropes. You've just lost money and delayed your implementation, for political ideals that you probably don't really understand.

Is that what makes a good manager?

I have a weblocker stuffed full of Linux boxes I administer that do majorly cool things for free 24/7, and I love them. That still doesn't make my favorite O/S the right choice for PHBs, even if it is the righteous one.

improvements

[Anonymous Coward]

"We've drastically improved the performance on Checkdisk."

Wow. I can't wait to upgrade.

Then they laugh at us...

[digitalhermit]

I'll preface this by saying that I am a Linux user through and through. I can't stand Microsoft for practical and philosophical reasons. That said, I've noticed a lot of comments rated as "Funny". As evil as the company is, it is not funny. They are a bueiness with the goal of making dollars, billions of dollars, and nothing more. This may be the reason for their anti-trust tactics, for their anti-consumer EULAs, for their buggy software. I don't know. I do know that they have billions of dollars to convince people that Windows 2003 is the only solution. How? They repeat a thing over and over. It doesn't matter at all if it's true or not, as long as people keep hearing something they will start to believe.

It works simply: Run a few marketing ads full of outright lies or half-truths. These ads get picked up by some page two newspaper columnist to write a fluff piece and lend it credibility. Soon others start repeating the original advertisement as truth. Sadly, newspaper columnists are under a lot of deadlines and a technical piece may not get the rigorous fact-checking that other news gets. Pretty soon even level-headed folks start hearing the ads from a reputable source. It might be enough to even sway someone who is familiar with other technologies.

Steve got it right

[coolmacdude]

our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community

That's certainly true. They have come up with far more innovative ways to introduce fatal security holes, integrate flawed and overly restrictive DRM into their products, and come out with countless patches and service packs that sometimes even break basic system functionality. On top of that, M$ continues to complain that the very existence of open source might actually force them to improve their products! Sorry about that Bill, we obviously miscalculated what a burden we were placing on you. Please let us know what we can do to help your business stay the way it is and keep pissing off your users.

And RMS isn't an embarassment to Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well?

Linus is the *only* Linux "bigwig" that isn't a flaming idiot. And just this week you all flamed him to death.

On second thought, it's the Linux users that are the embarassment...

Yikes

[inertia187]

Could you imagine waking up to this or even that every morning?

Bloomberg News (Seattle P-I) says MSFT in trouble

[WillASeattle]

According to this news story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the local Seattle paper, the Seattle Times is for the suburbanites), Microsoft is in severe danger of losing their shorts to Linux with their release of Windows 2003.

Maybe Paul Allen was right in diversifying out of Microsoft stock ...

Samba really is faster.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just built my first Samba server, on an old Compaq Proliant 5000R server, dual PentiumPro 200 MHz CPUs, 512MB memory, old narrow scsi RAID array with 7200rpm drives, and Intel 1000BaseSX gigabit ethernet nic, running SuSE 8.1 Linux with XFS filesystems. I also have a dual XEON 1.0 GHz Proliant ML530 with 2GB memory, ultra160 raid array with 15K rpm drives and same Intel 1000BaseSX gigabit nic plugged into the same Cisco Catalyst switch, running NT4 as our company's main fileserver.

I measured filesharing performance by copying a 500MB iso image file from a Window 2000 workstation both to and from each server and got a little over five minutes for the newer, faster NT4 machine, and about 2 minutes, 35 seconds for the older machine running Linux+Samba.

Re:Samba really is faster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use a linux client to smbmount the SMB shares of both machines. Run a filesystem thrasher like bonnie++ on both using a 2GB set. That should give a slightly better idea of a comparison against the two. (I still have my money on the linux box.)

Where to go for security fixes.

[sharph]

Ballmer says theres no place to go for bug fixes.

No. 1. RHN and Ximian provide easy updating tools that deal with this.

No. 2. Use common sense. If there's a security flaw in programx, go to http://www.programx.org (or whatever there web site is.)

Re:News flash: MS takes care of 1 well-funded comp

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, that's funny. Maybe too much coffee but that visual kills me... defacating in their living room... haha.

Re:Web Services Development

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that motion. I strongly suspect moderation is based on length of content: long posts get more points.

Read the f*cking post before you mod it up, jackass.

Not really.

[oGMo]

Microsoft, on the other hand, has been more daring. They're attempting break free of the Win32 legacy with .net, even going for processor independence at the same time. [...]

"Innovation" is coming up with something new and useful. None of these things you have listed qualifty as either; they have been done to death, and Microsoft is just catching up 20 years later. (Java was hardly the first VM. And yes, other VMs have attempted this at the OS level, including Java, and even non-VMs, like Lisp.) "Catching up" and "doing things you haven't seen from us before" seems to be the MS definition of "innovation," but it's not the well-accepted one.

For unknown reasons, Linux seems to attract conservative thinkers. Any time replacing X11 comes up, there will be vehement advocates insisting that It Is The Way and that we shouldn't replace something that works. And so it goes. Twenty years from now we'll still be using X11.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We see the fact that people do not comprehend the reasons for X and its design, and rather look to things like having transparent windows as a more useful "feature" than network transparency. Standards like X and OpenGL are misunderstood; there are mechanisms for extending them with the fancy new features. There is no need to replace them, particularly with poorly-thought-out designs by people who don't truly understand windowing systems.

People who do understand them realize it's a lot easier to extend X than implement a new system. ;-)

It's better to stick with X than be subjected to an inferior attempt at a windowing system.

Re:Not really.

[Junks Jerzey]

"Innovation" is coming up with something new and useful. None of these things you have listed qualifty as either; they have been done to death, and Microsoft is just catching up 20 years later.

I said "relatively speaking," and I even emphasized *relatively*. Microsoft is using new spins on old inventions to benefit the user. "Benefit" is the key. Arguing that X11 was a great architecture for 1985 does not benefit the user.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We see the fact that people do not comprehend the reasons for X and its design, and rather look to things like having transparent windows as a more useful "feature" than network transparency.

A perfect example. X11's key design feature is something that does not apply 99% of the time. It was a total and utter mistake from the days of many users connected to one mainframe or minicomputer. It is a non-issue for desktop use. Microsoft and Apple understand this. You design for the common case.

Re:Not really.

[irix]

A perfect example. X11's key design feature is something that does not apply 99% of the time. It was a total and utter mistake from the days of many users connected to one mainframe or minicomputer. It is a non-issue for desktop use. Microsoft and Apple understand this. You design for the common case.

Every time I see people dismiss the X client/server model I have to laugh. What do you do with your PC, run it in isolation in your parents basement?

I develop software for Solaris and Linux from my Linux box using X. I use network transparency 100% of the time and so do all of the developers I work with. When I get home I can use X to develop software on my server from my laptop, and to run XMMS from the PC hooked up to my stereo to play music.

That silly network transparency feature has lead to millions of dollars in sales in the Windows world (Citrix, Windows Terminal Server) when people realized that running your desktop over the network is essential.

The previous poster is right; those who don't understand X are doomed to re-implement it - poorly.

Re:Not really.

[Junks Jerzey]

Every time I see people dismiss the X client/server model I have to laugh.

Laugh away. That doesn't change the fact that 99% of all desktop usage under Linux and 99.999% under Windows use a display directly connected to the PC.

"Windows Terminal Server" is the correct solution. You design for the common case, you do extra work for the odd case. Period. I know you'll dismiss this, I really do. And that's fine.

Re:Not really.

[dpt]

Laugh away. That doesn't change the fact that 99% of all desktop usage under Linux and 99.999% under Windows use a display directly connected to the PC.

Fucking Jesus, that's idiotic. Have you ever tried using "Windows Terminal Server"? It doesn't compare to X. And, given that running X directly connected to your PC doesn't cost you anything (the Windows GUI is actually more sluggish on the same machine), it is the correct design.

And please *stop* saying things like "99%" and "99.999%". This is what it says to the world - "I don't understand maths, and I'm proud of it".

"Windows Terminal Server" is the correct solution. You design for the common case, you do extra work for the odd case. Period. I know you'll dismiss this, I really do. And that's fine

Sigh. This is why so much of what is produced in "IT" is complete and utter crap. You have to actually have some understanding of engineering and analysis, and not just jump up and down screaming "99.999%" at the top of your voice.

It's time to go and get that pesky degree, I think.

Re:Not really.

[irix]

That doesn't change the fact that 99% of all desktop usage under Linux and 99.999% under Windows use a display directly connected to the PC

Where did you come up with those numbers? Ah - you just made them up. I'm sure your vast experience backs this up, right?

I'll tell you what - when you grow up and actually use a PC for something besides playing games, you'll find out that your made up numbers aren't anywhere near correct. Out in the real world, people use remote desktops all of the time. In the mean time, feel free to complain about X all you want, and people who know better can feel free to laught at you

I'm just waiting for WinBSD (yeah, right)

[josh_freeman]

Were it not that I have been in the cyber community long enough to realise that Microsoft has the same fear of all things *nix that Superman has of Kryptonite and the Undead have of Holy Water, I would be truly amazed that they haven't taken a hint from Apple and build the damn thing off a BSD core. Think about it, They've taken DOS, and over the years Microsoft has successively added more and more of the core functionality of *nix (networking, a gui, the concept of permissions) into it.

Although I run the risk of being branded a heretic for saying this, I actually like some of the features of XP. I don't like to run it, and I only own a copy since I got one free at an on-campus giveway, but it has redeeming features. Although I trust M$ about as much as I would trust your average despotic leader, they do know how to make an attractive, and somewhat useful, GUI.

What they don't do all that well is build a server OS. The GUI is pretty, and until I learned Novell and *nix, it made it easy to get stuff done. However, it's maddeningly stupid that Windows is constantly refreshing the GUI on a box that is a server, and 99% of the time has the monitor turned off.

That one factor is one of the biggest advantages of running *nix over Windows. I run a webserver that gets a decent amount of traffic on an ancient AMD K6-200. Aside from xhosting being a little slow, it runs great. I know a guy running a similar traffic site on Win 2K, and it's painful. To stay (get, become?) competitive Windows will need to separate the OS from the GUI, at least on the server end. The obvious way to do this would be to build of BSD, but it makes far too much sense to ever happen.

The sooner that Microsoft stops treating Linux like the enemy and starts treating it like another market (forgetting for the second that "Embrace and Extend" translates roughly to "Rape and Pilliage") the happier everyone will be:

• *nix will never take over the desktop completely
• *nix will continute to infiltrate the server market, and giving away Windows as Open Source wouldn't change that all that much
• If Microsoft built off a BSD base, they wouldn't have to issue more patches than a boy scout troop leader
• If Microsoft would learn to play nice, and start actually selling software for Linux, people would buy it.(not me, necessarily, but I could probably convert half my office to Linux + Microsoft Office for Linux if it existed)
• The dancing paper clip must die.

Re:I'm just waiting for WinBSD (yeah, right)

[Anonymous Coward]

*nix will never take over the desktop completely

Mac OS X will.

Re:I'm just waiting for WinBSD (yeah, right)

[Anonymous Coward]

no it won't. everyone would have to buy a mac.

In many ways Ballmer is completely right...

[Progman3K]

Look how far Windows will have to come before it is as good as Linux!

So, because Windows is starting from so much further back, it actually *has* improved more than Linux, which was already improved.

Just semantics really.

mostly FUD, but a few valid points

[dh003i]

99% of everything Balmer has said is complete FUD.

No installation standards? Maybe not one universal standard -- but each distribution has its own standards. Gentoo has .ebuilds, Debian has .debs, Redhat has .rpms...all of this is pretty much automatic installation. Since one corporation is going to use one distribution, that doesn't really matter much. Furthermore, distributions are perfectly capable of sharing install utilities. The one thing I think would be good is if distributions worked on making sure that that could be done more seamlessly. This would only be relevant if a company was moving from one distribution to another, however.

Regarding a consistent GUI, however, he is right. The problem isn't, however, that there are different UI's. That's a good thing. The problem is that Motif applications look out of place in WindowMaker, for example. The problem is that on each individual user end, it is difficult for all applications to look consistent. This could be solved by completely divorcing content from appearance. The programmer should not be deciding how the program looks to the user. The program should specify, "Menu, with such and such items", and "toolbar, with such and such items", and then depending on the user's UI setup, it would display differently. This is sort of the idea for PicoGUI. IOW, an application written by a programmer would look NeXTish on Windowmaker, Motif'ish on a motif-WM, and Windowish on KDE and GNOME.

This would be a good thing, but would require programmers to collaborate on creating some kind of universal translator for menu => appearance, depending on the user preferences. Preferrably, this standard would be lightweight as possible, and allow for maximum integration between apps.

Dumb Question...

[Tsali]

... but didn't they spend a lot of time trying to hack away the command prompt out of Windows at one point? Now they want to possibly base a whole server architecture on it?

Okie-doke. That sounds like innovation to me. Take from Linux/Unix something you derided it for no more than a few years ago.

Duh.

PHB speak translation

[frozenray]

Keep in mind that Ballmer holds a Senior Management position at Microsoft, and that everything that's being said from the top level PHBs has to be translated first (top level management lives in a different universe, and possibly in a whole different dimension as the rest of us). Since my job at $BIG_CORP unfortunately involves contact with higher management levels, I can offer you the following helpful translation of some of Mr. Ballmer's quotes. This is not Microsoft-specific BTW, we just dissected a message from the CEO of our employer today and it wasn't any better.

Quote: "I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition."
Translation: "It's a big fat blimp on our threat radar. We're out to fry their asses before they get ours."

Quote: "On the other hand, in terms of putting a clear, simple proposition in front of the customer, I think we have a leading edge proposition."
Translation:"We'll make them an offer they can't refuse."

Quote: "I do think there are things that people don't understand very well about the new alternative, where it is important for us to help customers understand the issues."
Translation: "Our FUD tactics worked well in the past and I don't see why they shouldn't work as well in the future."

Quote: "[...] some people are choosing Linux. I don't think that is going to continue to be the case."
Translation: "Yeah, we're pretty scared about customers considering a switch and haven't really figured out how to counter that threat yet, but why admit it?."

Quote: "If the lead developer for this component chooses to do something else with his life, who will carry on the mantle for that?"
Ballmer's thoughts: "Let's hope the interviewer doesn't ask what happens if we decide to discontinue a product."

Quote: "There are still challenges in parts of Asia. We have seen improvements in Latin America."
Translation: "In Asia, they steal our software like there's no tomorrow. Latin America isn't really much better."

Quote: "By hook or by crook, so to speak, there will be 5-plus million servers, roughly, sold in the next 12 months."
Translation: "If this server consolidation thingy that's been going on lately is just a fad, we'll be doing fine. Otherwise, well..."

Quote: "everybody likes to talk about Google, which is fine. They are doing a good job as a company. But for traffic, Yahoo is doing quite well and we are doing quite well."
Translation: "Google is kicking our collective pasty white rumps so hard you woldn't believe it. Let's just hope they go public so we can buy them out."

Quote: "No, I don't anticipate making a change of that ilk [Licensing 6] in the foreseeable future."
Translation: "Our vendor-lock-in strategy worked, and now we have them by the balls."

Thanks for the Reminder

[LordMyren]

Ah, thanks for the smile. Right on target.

To me, open source epitomizes why i use computers. Whenever faced with two paths in a computer; make it run now or spend a couple days making it run right for the rest of my life, the choice seems pretty clear. Invest a day, two days, a week now, and let the seconds i spend configuring pay me back over the years.

Open source iconifies this philosophy into a development technique. Invest invest invest, and tomorrow ye shalt see. Although linux and the swarm of libraries and source code that already surrounds it poses an enormous benefit to anyone willing to learn it, the balls just gotten rolling. As technology progresses onwards the only way to allow for competitive innocation is by open source. We are supplying the world the building blocks of creativity.

Legos for everyone
Myren

Re:Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI

[BlueGecko]

Classic Mac OS also had a CLI available that ran on top of their GUI, actually. It came with MPW, or the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, and is still available from the Apple Developer's area. My understanding is that Amiga also had a CLI on top of its GUI.

yay

[InsaneCreator]

Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.

Finally! I can't tell you how much it sucks, when you crack an NT server and it doesn't have a decent command-line... ;)

Hype or fact??

[Eric Damron]

I just attended a Microsoft Launch Event yesterday in Seattle Washington. One of the products that they were talking about was Windows Server 2003.

How much of what they said was hype and how much was fact is hard to tell. It seems that benchmarks can be easily skewed. However ignoring their claims about alleged speed improvements and just focusing on features here are some of their innovations:

1. Better stability. Apparently one will no longer be required to reboot the server as part of a maintenance schedule. I know that some claim that rebooting a 2000 server isn't required but I know many more who do so. The new Windows 2003 server has the ability to monitor processes and if a process starts taking up too many resources that single process can be shutdown and restarted. Kind of like rebooting your system one process at a time as needed.

2. The theme of the event was "Do more with less." It was mentioned that many administrators will not place more than one mission critical application on an NT or Windows 2000 server because if that application has problems it could effect the other mission critical applications. Apparently this is no longer a problem.

3. Server services setup has been greatly simplified. The administrator is presented with a list of server responsibilities (http, email, file server, etc). There are checkboxes next to each server function and all the administrator has to do is check the functions that he/she wants the server to perform. The administrator will be lead by the hand by a wizard to help setup the selected services.

4. Most services are turned off by default for added security.

My personal observations are that Microsoft has done a lot of work to improve their server and if you believe everything they say, it's the best thing since buttered bread. However, I feel a lot of their claims about performance were hype. I guess time will tell.

By Hook or by Crook

[Euphonious Coward]

Ballmer's comment that, "By hook or by crook, so to speak, there will be 5-plus million servers, roughly, sold in the next 12 months," was very revealing. A Freudian slip?

"By hook" implies force. "By crook" implies deception. This really is how MS has always operated, but it's interesting that (1) its CEO feels free to express it so casually, and (2) that the interviewer lets it slide by.

Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

And the best part is, it's so simple to use! It has only one command: "reboot."

A much as I dislike the bias on this site, this comment made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

WE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everybody, we have a THING happening here. LoL! (emphasis mine)

Open Source Innovations

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a list of recent OSS innovation off the top of my head. I'm sure I left off a number of things.

Web Browsing:
tabbed browsing
popup blocking
tabbed homepage

Web Serving:
Tux and the kernel architecture (appears to have been copied in W2003)
text configuration files

Kernel:
New scheduler
RieserFS and similar work
Nearly all of the OpenBSD security features
better packet filtering

GUI:
Virtual desktops
Enlightenment
a number of 3D desktops
Improved Theming

Email:
bayesian filtering
powerful indexing in Evolution

Re:Open Source Innovations

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, which is why I say that over the last five years we have started seeing a change on this. I'd expect the number of innovations to increase hereafter, as there are not many old-unix functionalities left to implement, so OSers will be able to focus their efforts (even more) on improving Linux.

Those innovative licenses...

[MythosTraecer]

our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community

Yes, those restrictive, expensive, perpetual licensig agreements you force your customers to sign now would never have been thought of by the free/open source community.

innovation - kerberos, ssl, openssh, etc

[Slime-dogg]

Hey! Mr. Ballsmear is saying dirty things about how the community that creates Linux is not innovative. Of course, we will overlook the extensive use of BSD code within Windows, or the fact that they can't come up with better authentication and security mechanisms than kerberos.

Sometimes businesses don't want innovation. They want stability,clear upgrade paths, and last but not least, security. My boss still uses CMD.exe to do most of his work, even though he's running windows 2000. Most of the guys here can code in Linux as well as in Windows, the environment really doesn't matter... as long as we've got a text editor and a debugger.

If it works, it's good. If it's got newfangled features that break every now and then or open new holes to someone who likes to break things, then we don't want it.

Now, windows 2003 does have some very interesting and great features. I can't say that they are innovative, because an HTTP listener exists in the Linux kernel, because a separate process VM running an application server has been done, because IL compilers have been made in academic environments...

Nothing that MS does is innovative, to tell the truth. They use stuff that other people have developed, and give it a candy-coated shell to make it palatable. That's the crux of it. I can't believe that Steve is lying outright right here. Someone should cut out his tongue or something... he really doesn't make MS look "good" to IT companies.

ceo of MS says they rule, news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fuck cares!!??

If you can't beat them...

[NerveGas]

... Join them!

Asking hackers to look at your code to see how they would attack it. It almost smells of Open Source! A command-line server... sounds like Linux! I guess that imitation IS the most sincere form of flattery.

- Of course, having a small number of hackers look at your code still isn't as good as having a very large number look at your code.

steve

Unnecessary reboots

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working with Macs exclusively for a couple of years. I'd gotten used to OS X, but with the slow processors, I felt I had to jump ship.

On OS X I had assigned multiple IPs to a single ethernet card by copying and pasting the card's profile. I had re-assigned IPs without thinking about it. I had started an FTP server with one click in the Sharing pane and then turned it off with another ten minutes later.

After switching to a Windows 2000 PC, I installed a typing tutor. The computer insisted that I reboot. It was like a physical slap in the face.

Re:ya baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

Step outside chump. Oil barrons? American Ruling class?
What fucking 7th century brainwashing are you experiencing? You like dictators? You think the Taliban was a good thing for Afghanistan?
Backward fucking coward, do you have a fucking clue?

Love,

Imperialist stooge

ps ( last time i checked, i don't have an emperor..)

Surprisingly, CNET asked interesting questions...

[podperson]

It seems to me that the interview contained some very interesting questions and got fairly lame answers.

1. The cost of systems is going down, and Office can cost 1/3 the cost of a physical system.

It seems crazy to me that consumers are willing to pay $800 for a $300 computer with Windows and Office. Eventually consumers will figure this out too. Ballmer basically sticks his head in the sand and claims the two things aren't related. But when the price ratio of going Linux/OSS + PC vs. Windows/Office + PC goes up and the utility of the systems approachs par, this has to be bad news for MS.

2. People selling Linux-based PCs in developing nations and installing pirate copies of Windows...

Obviously, this is an ongoing problem for Microsoft. The real problem will be when the users don't immediately install Windows on the computer, and are happy with Linux. Indeed, this is the acid test for desktop Linux.

Truth be told, you're a moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO realize that KDE & Gnome are NOT Linux specific, don'y you. Just about Any UNIX can use them.

Asshat.

Re:Truth be told, you're a moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO realize that KDE & Gnome are NOT Linux specific,

Oh boy, I bet you fried some neurons coming up with such a deep insight...

Sure, you can drive a NASCAR car on a dirt road. This does not negate that the car was designed to be driven in a closed track.

Re:Truth be told, you're a moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, I bet you fried some neurons coming up with such a deep insight

You lose that bet. I'm in a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

KDE & Gnome were designed to be on top of X. X was not designed specifically for Linux. X predates Linux.

BTW, you DO know that NASCAR sanctions dirt track races too, don't you ;)

Re:Truth be told, you're a moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is annoying the way people assume that OSS==Linux, but that is what Ballmer was doing. Taken in the context of Ballmers' statement, that post was quite accurate.

Why the innovation argument doesn't stand...

[paRcat]

ok, Balmer says that Linux doesn't innovate, or that MS innovates more, or whatever.

Here's the thing, how many innovations really need to happen on the OS level?

Personally, I innovate. Almost 1 or 2 a month (if not week), if I may say so myself. But those innovations are directly related to my company and how it works. If I had to make sure the same innovations were also 'innovations' in another company, I wouldn't be able to. Innovations are specific in nature... they innovate, or vastly improve, something specific. No matter how much the word is thrown around, true innovation can't happen very often at all in an OS. Why? Because it's a generic system made to be used is many varied circumstances.

How do you vastly improve (innovate) a generic system? Generally, you don't... you make many small improvements that result in the generic system becoming an innovation in itself... but only if it is replacing a completely different system. (hope that makes sense)

'Innovation' should be a word saved for the end-user's creativity, not for such a generic thing as an operating system.

.Net *is* an innovation.

[LanikMueller]

.Net is an innovation even though it is obviously inspired by java. If you think all MS code is registry entries and 3rd party plugins then you are truly clueless. I wouldn't make a habit of commenting on things you know nothing about (or ever used) ...

Re:Linux itself is a clone of an operating system.

[Dante]

OK OK 66 year old.

IIS Innovation

[weave]

Apparently the rev of IIS in 2003 server is configured using a text file. And you know what, IIS admins are excited about this. Wish I remembered the discussion board I saw this in, but they were going on about how they could now easily clone IIS installs to other machines by just copying a text config file over to another one, or customizing an install by writing a simple script to munge the configuraiton file.

Wow, now that's progress! What next? An unattended installation process that actually works, like kickstart, where you can specify everything needed to install via a simple text file, including partition table layout, and then use a simple XML file to determine what packages get loaded?

And before you claim Windows can do this, be careful. You might get me started on one of my typical rants.

A different take..

[Malachi]

It takes a lot of ingredients to make a pizza.. MS, regardless on my distaste for them, will be around for a very long time. As such, linux or its variations will be around for a very long time. They are different layers in this data-pizza we feast on daily.

At work, I have 1 windows server and 12 linux servers.. the 1 windows server is just a domain controller for the office.. but because windows is embedded in most peoples minds 95% of the office uses windows as their primary desktop.

Regardless of saturation, MS has enough money to burn that it could do just about anything to salvage the public back to it if it had need.

Linux users need to have more leaders. More people who take charge and motivate. Most software I have ever used or been apart of was built out of necessity. 'Can we get this to work? No? What would it take?' --- Done.. and thats how I see most of the community. Patching holes on the ship, with some innovation from the bowels of the ship on occassion. Leaders help pull those patchy resources into alignment for a greater replacement.. maybe even one that has DOC.

Linux needs more corporate participation and direction. Some is out there, but they are like roaving islands.. its hard to get your bearings in this enviornment most of the time. More paying contracts or bands of coders willing to commit.

It all comes down to more and discipline, and even with all that, MS will still be there, still cajoling. Once Linux* has a product that can compete (by product I mean desktop, server to server is application and enviornmentaly specific), MS in the end, could take a huge capital hit for the final bid (like an apocolyptic standoff ever occurs) for the market.. which again goes against the grain of life, which rants back to the ingredients idea, which is to say we need a little of a lot of things in order to move forward..

If we didn't have the prostelatizing MS at our heels, what would drive the angsty to code something alternative instead of just mush and drink cola ;)

This rant is full of errors..I humbly apologize..

This Is Karma Whoring

[poot_rootbeer]

Ballmer is still a FUD afficianado.

Judging by his physique, he's still a FOOD afficionado too.

This just in from the Iraqi Information Minister..

[RighteousFunby]

There is no Linux. This Linux is a conspiracy, planted by stupid...Finns? What? This is a conspiracy! This Finland was built by the Americans to confuse us and sap our precious bodily fluids etc etc etc...

Linux innovation defined

[heroine]

Linux innovation is when Codeweavers starts running Win32 binaries before Win 2003 starts runnning Win32 binaries. So far it's been the other way around.

Lets say this again.

[Wizri]

What MS says about Linux is bullshit, what Linux people say about MS is personal opinion and means just as much.

If you don't like Microsoft's bullshit use Linux. If a button is broken, or a pixel is out of place or what ever: post to the proper forums/newsgroups (this is true for MS and Linux).

To every one who expects to pick up a copy of Linux (Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, Suse...) do not expect to become an expert in 60 seconds or less. You spent a lot of time in front of Windows before you really knew what you were doing, and then...

Regarding software packages; Linux/Community has a lot of its own ways of doing things, some formats are favoured over others. If you want to stream video using VLS and LVC (video lan server/client) it works great, if you need a web browser do not complain about not having IE, you won't get it (try Konqueror or Mozilla they both work fairly well).

I look around and I see that 90% of the complaints about Linux/KDE/GNOME/GNU/XF86... are all about one thing: "its not windows" --> "no shit".


--
Wanna hurt Microsoft? The desktop is the key.

Re:Ut-oh, looks like you're not a part of the crus

[Alex Belits]

Good manager does not assume that if his particular choice of employees ended up with a single support person capable of administering Linux, he has anything to say about Linux. In this particular situation the solution is to fire 9 Windows-only support people and hire 1-2 better ones that can support multiple systems (and pay them better, too). Instant improvement.

Hey Steve, what does it say...

[rkhalloran]

About Windows when a "clone of a 20-year old system" is taking share from you at an increasing rate? That your "innovations" aren't interesting anyone? That your security holes are growing tiresome? That businesses would rather spend the $$ on growing their business instead of yours?

The penguinistas are knocking at the door, and they're coming in...

Return of the Living Dead

[MAXOMENOS]

"Where's COBOL buried?"

"We keep burying it and it keeps coming back to life, goddamnit, and it's multiplying. So we keep it in barrels on a toxic waste site. Don't let it bite you or you're dead."

(Ol' Lady Hopper musta exposed her language to Trioxin 2-4-5 by mistake.)

Re:Return of the Living Dead

[dukarukus]

especially funny to me...
currently looking at COBOL that was written in 1983.

I must disagree with you.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I like the GPL. This is why I use the GPL. No one is asked to accept a license agreement, regardless of its validity, unless they want to do things that require extra permissions. Simple easy to remember concept, basically "I can do whatever I like and consult the GPL when common sense tells me I need to"

By using the software, you have agreed to the GPL. (The fact that the GPL makes no demands on you as a user is irrelevant.)

Re:I must disagree with you.

[Captain Rotundo]

From the GPL:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

In other words not only do you NOT have to accept the GPL to use the software, but the GPL states that it doesn't even include use in its scope. It has nothing to say about use AT ALL.

They shipped Windows Server 2003 w/ Broken IIS

[shatfield]

There is so much innovation going on at Microsoft that they can hardly take time out to ensure that their server operating system can run a server properly.

Check this out -- With IIS on Windows Server 2003, you cannot upload a file larger than a single packet (about 3K) via https.

Innovation at its finest.

Re:They shipped Windows Server 2003 w/ Broken IIS

[legolas]

Hmmm... I remember Redhat shipping with a default running FTP server (wuftpd), with a widely accessable exploit.

But that's different...

"I installed Linux, and my computer was hacked twice within the first week." -- One of my university engineering mathematics profs.

-legolas

Re:They shipped Windows Server 2003 w/ Broken IIS

[shatfield]

I'll trade straight across - your administrator error for my nasty web server bug! I'll even throw in a set of lawn furniture and a rubber duck! ;-)

Re:They shipped Windows Server 2003 w/ Broken IIS

[legolas]

I'd like to point out that the only virus/worm I've ever gotten (and I have several Windows machines) was that particularly nasty Apache worm that targetted FreeBSD machines. Yuck.

-legolas

Rewriting History

[Lindril]

"The way things are structured today, from a licensing perspective, in the Linux world nobody will ever commercialize Linux the way the Sun commercialized FreeBSD."

I thought this was an CNET interview, not Encarta.

Beautiful....

[anderiv]

We created the SMB file server specs, and we didn't have the fastest one around, which was embarrassing.

I love hearing that. :-)

Those are not new kiloler techs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Each example you cite is not Microsoft's new killer technology. They're Microsoft's implemetation of technology first brought out on other platforms.

Re:Those are not new kiloler techs...

[glenstar]

And, pray tell, where did Microsoft get NTFS from? MS *does* do some development in-house, you know.

Re:Those are not new kiloler techs...

[Anonymous Coward]

HPFS. Ever hear of it? NTFS invented NOTHING that HPFS didn't already have (both MS and IBM actually worked together on HPFS before they began to fight with each other).

A little love, a little misunderstanding...

[Yort]

You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing.

Whew! I bet that will make IBM feel a lot more confident about the whole SCO lawsuit, eh?

They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'

Hmmm... seems someone has a really poor understanding of the whole "open source" concept - you can do something about it. You've got the source. You can change it, alter it, add it, do whatever you need to do to fix your problem (as long as you keep it open source).

In sharp contrast, if you want Microsoft to "do something about it", you'd better have more in your wallet than phone numbers and Subway cards.

Innovation vs Keeping up with the Jones's

[darrad]

Ok, I have my flame-retardant underwear on....

As much as I like Linux/UNIX, there has been nothing new out of either for years, all Linux has done is say "here is another OS, and it's just like Windows, without the crashes". Great, but that is not innovation. As long as Linux is trying to be compatible with Windows/Office, they are playing catch up.

Microsoft, as much as we may dislike them, are in front, and running with the ball. They are setting the expectations of the customers. This is not good for Linux, if it hopes to gain market share in the desktop OS market, or server market. I attended a roll-out seminar for Windows Server 2003, and they are pulling some really neat tricks out of the bag, like "Secure out of the Box", extended CLI, and integrated Share Point Portal into the server.

If MS is ever taken down, it will be by something so new that comparisons between the 2 will be like comparing apples and burritos

Mistake?

[Bendebecker]

Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server
In true Microsoft fashion, this really means "the command line is the only part of the server that actually works."

WINDOWS IS DYING

[Anonymous Coward]

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered gate-greasers when IDC confirmed that Windows market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Windows has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Windows is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in recent uptime and security surveys.

You don't need to be a Ballmer to predict Windows future. The hand writing is on the wall: Windows faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Windows because Windows is dying. Things are looking very bad for Windows. As many of us are already aware, Windows continues to lose market share.

All major surveys show that Windows has steadily declined in market share. Windows is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Windows is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Windows continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Windows is dead.

Fact: Windows is dying

Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mastery of the art of cut and paste is impressive:

Whore.

Did he bring his American Tourister

[Anonymous Coward]

And toss it around the room?

Re:Surprisingly, CNET asked interesting questions.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obviously, this is an ongoing problem for Microsoft."

Only scenario with people installing Linux is really a problem for Microsoft. Even pirated copies of Windows help the Windows monopoly. So long as these copies do not detract from sales or cost money in support in a meaningful way they are beneficial for lock in just like Linux benefits when it is given away legally. Hell the fear of Windows and other Microsoft product piracy is one of cheif motivators for site/institution licenses.

At least they have command history...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something Sun STILL can't manage to do.

That guy is obviously a No Talent A$$ Clown.

[PyroX_Pro]

Some of these marketing agents I swear. They just spew the crap out of their mouths with absolutley NO idea what they are talking about.

Microshaft, an innovator?! Where has this giu been for the past 15 years! There is very little innovation these days, what has not already been done? Or thought of?

Just because there are 600 kung-foo movies does not mean that the newest one is not very good.

Its all pointless marketing crap on a stick.



Here is a senario for you Microsoft junkies...

Monday the 19th:

Installed windows XP from CD.

9:00am - apply Service Pack, restart machine.
10:00am - apply patch, restart machine
10:30am - connect to windows update, let updates run, patch, reboot
12:00pm - install MS Office.
12:30pm - patch office, reboot
1:00pm - install visual studio, patch, reboot,
install add-on, reboot, reboot.
2:00pm - format drive, install redhat, run red-carpet, all patches installed, no reboot required.
4:00pm - relax.

Everyone cries about patches with linux now, but here is the simple fact, ITS NOT 'LINUX' YOU ARE PATCHING, its packages, they are not all part of the OS, but are services, applications, and tools.

Lets count the number of patches for every bit of software on your WinXX box, be sure to include all applications, from outlook express, to server services.

How about this, the OSS community could just "Hide" their real vicious bugs and holes until they hurt someone like MS does. Would that make you feel better? MS only patches about 1/2 or less of their bugs. Don't forget that on several occasions they have posted holes or bugs and stated " we do not have a fix date for this ".

On the other hand, the OSS community has a patch put together the same week as most announced exploits, if not within 24 hours.

BAH! @%^#! you Ballmer, you are nothing more than a marketing fool.

You'll have to excuse me, these kinds of comments get my blood boiling.

Ballmer,,, heh.

Top Microsoft Innovations?

[Greyfox]

Could someone please provide of OS innovations by Microsoft that they didn't buy, borrow or steal from someone else? I honestly can't think of one single thing (Ok... well... BOB) that someone else in the industry wasn't doing before they stuck their grubby little fingers into it. Even Palladium sounds a lot to me like how IBM mainframes do their secure IPL sequences.

There may be some marketing and licensing innovations but I wouldn't view those things as being beneficial to the consumer.

Slashbots make FUD fun too

[Overly Critical Guy]

1. "We have competed with things that had no price attached with them before."

Rough translation: "We have used our monopoly status to unjustly defeat competition before, even those that were forced to release their software for free. We haven't figured out how to do that to Linux."

Translation: "I'm still angry over the fact Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the shell of Windows. Essentially, I criticize them for merging two pieces of their own software. I have no other way to argue with it so I decry it as illegal for some reason. Hang on, I've gotta browse some files in Konquerer."

2. "Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in."

A distributed environment of thousands of creative developers, from volunteers to huge corporate contributors like IBM and Sun can't innovate? Ballmer is confusing innovation with "buying companies that made something new and then calling it ours, and then crafting the software in a manner that insures customers continue spending money (and in greater lump sums)."

In other words, I don't like it when a company hires other developers and then attempts to make money by selling a product. I have no argument against the claim of lack of innovation in the Linux community, so I go for the tired Microsoft buyout criticism.

3. "Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old."

I thought Ballmer was done using that blatant untruth. It is clear that Linux is a completely different operating system then UNIX, and is developed in a completely different way, with entirely different strengths. Ballmer is still a FUD afficianado.

I won't address the fact that Linux is still a clone of UNIX. I'll just call it a "blatant untruth."

4. "The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality. There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that."

Ballmer still clearly doesn't understand the concept of the open source development model, is still not used to the concept of competition.

I won't address the points and simply just call him ignorant even though what he said was entirely true.

5. "If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer...."

That statement is truly laughable. Even people that are only vaguely famailar with the consistency of Windows and Linux software upgrades, patches, and hot fixes would scoff at that claim.

I won't address the points and will instead just call it "truly laughable." That is the basis for my entire argument.

look under the hood

[Ender Ryan]

KDE and GNOME are not "catching up" to Windows. Windows is an OS, KDE/GNOME are GUI Desktops. Where they compare to windows, however, they have already far surpassed it in some ways, and still have some catching up to do. KDE and GNOME both do not rely on a silly "registry". GNOME has GCONF, but GCONF is fundamentally different from the registry where it counts, resulting in superior performance and stability. Both are now easier to use than Windows(note: I'm only talking about KDE/GNOME, not using Linux in general, that's another discussion)

Mozilla is far superior to IE. I find it absolutely incredible that you would list Mozilla as something that is "trying to catch up". Mozilla is one of the most innovative pieces of software I've seen in a long time. XUL, Gecko, standards compliance, tabbed browsing, popup blocking, fine-grained cookie control, platform independence... I use Mozilla even when I'm forced to use Windows, and I'm not a Moz zealot, I used IE on Win until Mozilla was ready. My wife(complete non-techie) prefers Mozilla to IE.

The Kernel. Is it playing "catch up"? In some areas, yes. But so is windows, even more so is windows if you compare it to Solaris and BSD. Just wait for the next major kernel, performance improvements and features galore. There is serious innovation going on in the development kernel these days. As for innovation with the Linux kernel, can you say "portable"? I thought you could. What other OS kernel runs on such a wide variety of hardware? None.

Re:look under the hood

[Anonymous Coward]

As for innovation with the Linux kernel, can you say "portable"? I thought you could. What other OS kernel runs on such a wide variety of hardware? None.

NetBSD? ;-)

Re:look under the hood

[Anonymous Coward]

> What other OS kernel runs on such a wide variety
> of hardware?

NetBSD runs on alot more hardware than Linux

Let's see

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1989, a project manager at the company I worked for came into my cube and said "I hear you know C."

I started to reply how I had been using it to rapid prototype assembler, but he cut me off and said "Great. You get to port our software to this Unix thing." And he rolls in a 68040 based BSD workstation in.

Everything I learned on that 'puter is still useful today.

Now, a few months after this event, the VP of engineering comes into my cube and says "Someones trying to use our software with this windows thing. Install this on your PC," hands me the Windows distribution, "and let me know what you find." With the exception of Alt-F4 closing a window (with no gaurantee of stopping the process), I doubt there's much the same.

I always found this amusing...

[bhsx]

subtract a letter from WNT and what do you get?
that's right folks: VMS

In Related News

[petecarlson]

The Iraqi Information Ministry today announced that Steve Ballmer, of Microsoft, would be replacing Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who reportedly committed suicide earlier this month, at the ministries top post. Source

I've got two words for you.

[Slime-dogg]

Microsoft Bob.

Sales Pitch

[mugnyte]

We're here cutting up and tagenting from Ballmer's interview, but remember this guy is a salesman . All words out of his mouth are intended for the technology decision makers in corporate environments. Simply, this guys speaks to the money.

The "20yo Linux" comment is invalid as technospeak as it is to be an apologist for 8-10 years of stability-gain for each Windows "innovation". But no need to chop it up, he doesn't care if its correct. He just wants that quote emailed to your CTO. Its a tagline.

Funny enough, the Linux-As-Noncompetition theme simply doesn't work. MS knows this, but they waiver on their position: "We're Attacking! We're Indifferent!" There isn't a position against Linux they won't release.

Frankly, though, their own arguments seem to bite them back:

20-year-old technology cannot be easily criticized on stability or market share, or mindshare either.

Innovation in technology to MS is based on StupidUser productivity and value-added sales. In the *nix world, innovation is based on experiment and integration. User productivity comes out, but the target community isn't always (or so far highly) the StupidUser demographic. Innovation overall stems from scientific experimentation. MS cannot employ every SuperGenius at every university.

Linux offers choices and a splattering of options. Having them is the advantage, not disadvantage. Too many tech-minded people are intimidated by this change from the MS "approved driver list" mentality. Software is vastly more intricate than the $20 bin at CompuCrack. If you are to be the geekguru, you gotta do the homework. Most computer behavior is a commodity, shop around. MS's attack that this somehow causes problems is their song like any shop, "Believe In No Gods Beside Me".

The kernel vs. OS deliniation keeps coming back to replacability. Any OO programmer knows having well-designed isolated layers can serve as a benefit. When MS's services form a complex tree of dependencies that make an upgrade so daunting it shakes their own BlueCards, you know something's wrong. Linux survives continuously because the dependencies are flatter and more outlined (read: not gone though). I'm unsure how MS got itself into this homogenization, but I suspect it has something to do with lack of design at their consolidation methods over the years. And so, we start with a major OS revision coming out yet again. Every new solution exposes a new problem in that experience.

I could go on, as we've all read this before here. But frankly, MS still has a steep uphill battle to make money competing with something that's free, and improving.

mug

Who's a clone?

[odie_colonie]

Balmer:

"Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition."

So, does that mean that Windows 2003 is a totally new from the ground up OS? Not bloody likely!

Oops

[Mr.Intel]

Cummunism is...

I even previewed it! Bring on the innuendos.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You put your finger on it

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it this way: Microsoft people, including Steve Ballmer, are the undisputed masters of the universe when it comes to "getting customers to pay money for software".

Maybe they got there by being evil, but they didn't get there by being clueless. Which means, even though I'm a Microsoft-hating Slashdot-reading Gnu/Linux hippie, I have to pay attention to Ballmer and Gates.

I found most of the things Ballmer said here to be true. True with Microsoft spin, and true with Microsoft slant, but basicallly, Ballmer understands his competition.

But this idea that IBM can't support it because they didn't write it is weak. It's so weak that it might just be wishful thinking.

One of the characteristics of free software is that it spawns technology transfer that works across organizational boundaries. If an IBM support engineer needs to understand how something in the kernel works, they can find tons of relevant discussion in the open literature, and they can talk to clueful engineers outside IBM almost as easily as they can talk to people inside IBM. Same with gcc, apache, perl, or any successful free software. They all come with giant, world-readable knowledge bases.

you have a funny idea of "catching up"

[g4dget]

Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?

Name an application or feature on Windows that is "truly innovative".

he other large areas of development (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, the kernel) are simply trying to catch up to existing commercial software (Windows, IE, Solaris/BSD).

Much of Solaris and BSD are based on open source. Windows uses a lot of open source code (networking, etc.). IE was based on open source software. Commercial software keeps copying original research, often released in open source form. Then, a generation later, open source software takes some tweaks from the commercial software and is accused of "catching up".

Of course, commercial entities can throw huge amounts of money at software development and push out stuff really fast when they have to. Open source development can be very slow in comparison. But with very few exceptions, the commercial software companies are not where the innovation happens. Neither Microsoft nor, for that matter, Apple, have invented much of anything in their corporate history. They have mostly been good at taking research results and turning them into products, sometimes well (Apple), sometimes not so well (Microsoft).

Re:Ballmer's an embarassment, MS should hire al Sa

[Vengeance]

Well, from my reading, I figured he meant you couldn't even use it as a bloody print server without the GUI layer. If that's not so, great... But that's not how it sounded to me. Look, if GUI applications have a hard time creating printable output streams and need some help from the O/S, I'm all for it. But a command-line version of Windoze wouldn't be running any GUI apps, now would it? Why shouldn't the LPT1 or whatever device be available, and spoolable? I had third party print queues under Win3.1 for heaven's sake, why couldn't one be grafted into the server product?

Wow

[Overly Critical Guy]

Wow, you used "M$." Not only that, but you listed a bunch of security holes while ignoring sendmail's, BIND's, and all the other Linux security flaws over the years. Your argument is cohesive and daring. You even managed to address "Bill" directly. Nobody has done that on Slashdot before.

Ballmer shoots himself in foot.

[bdowne01]

No, no, no. Not in the home. It [PC price] hasn't come down in the last several years at all. Remember when sub-$1,000 PCs were all the rage. The percentage of sub-$1,000 or $500 PCs is not significantly different today than it was several years ago. There is more capability every year for the price, but the same could be said for Microsoft Office 2003.

Well Steve, considering that Windows/Office can generally make up about 50% of the PC's price...you're right. They haven't budged at at all.

Pretty amazing what a monopoly can let you do eh?

Ballmer Might be Right about Innovation

[techsoldaten]

You know, Ballmer is right about innovation. He is miscasting Linux as ancient and wrong to criticize it because it is old. But he may be technically right about innovation, as M$ has really done a lot to make machines accessible to the common user.

When the anti-trust suit was getting going, I was forced to think about what Microsoft has done for the technical community. I was taken back to that time, about 10 - 15 years ago, when harware was hard to install and software was even tougher.

The fact that software developers have been able to standardize around a common OS and hardware architecture is a good thing. There is a lot less praying involved that the thing you are spending your money on has been tested in an environment similar to your own and will work.

Think about it: would there be a NVidia or an ATI if average users out there had no demand for their product? Would there be demand for their cards if people thought they would have to pay someone $100 an hour to install them? Would there be games written for them if no one had them? I know this is bordering on the absurd, but that works to my point: without Windows, there would be a lot of things we would not have these days. Someone else probably would have stepped up to fill in the void, but if we had a huge number of OSes and platforms out there all with large consumer bases, it is hard to imagine most companies building out the kinds of products we see today.

I give M$ credit for providing a product to accomplish this standardization.

And I prepare to be flamed.

M

Executive Summary

[StormReaver]

He said: "We're still finding issues. But all of the newer code has got to be ten or a hundred times better."

What it really means: "We were lying all those years we told you that we created top notch code. Now that nobody believes us anymore, we're starting another round. No really! This time we really do have top notch code. Just trust us. We wouldn't lie about something this important."

He said: "The [applications] that people make themselves tend to be better than the larger, all-encompassing applications."

What it really means: "We were lying all those years we told you that tight integration makes for better applications. Software written by people outside Microsoft, who make one application and make it work well, outperform the all-in-one software produced at Microsoft."

He said: "Personally, I'm against shoving things into the kernel. That was a very careful decision. We have a lot of parsing in there, and that opens you up to buffer overruns and attacks."

What it really means: "We know that our kernel is already badly broken because we keep stuffing shit in there, and we know that stuffing yet more shit in there is a really, really, really bad idea, but we're going to do it anyway."

He said: "That's something Linux has that's ahead of us, but we're looking at it. We will have a command line-only version, but whether it'll have all the features in is another matter."

What it really means: "We were lying all those years that we told you how bad the command line was, and how much more reliable a GUI makes a server. The Linux guys have been ahead of us for years, but we're just now willing to admit it (since nobody believes us anymore)."

He said: "It looks really good on PowerPoint! Reality is never quite as good."

What it really means: "We're gonna send out our Marketroids to sell you on a whole new batch of lies and PowerPoint slides. Rest assured that the actual product will suck badly."

Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Q-Cat5]

Okay, maybe I'm just missing the big pic here, but what exactly has MS innovated again? (Apart from massively restricitive licensing, anti-competitive "bundling", etc.) From what I can see:

MS has a GUI. Apple and Xerox did it first.
MS has multi-tasking. OS/2 had it before MS did, and many OS's did/do it better even after MS finally got around to it.
MS has Word. WordPerfect, among others, did it first.
MS has Excel. Anyone heard of Lotus 1-2-3? Or VisiCalc?
MS has IE. Netscape, Mosaic, et al. all came first.
MS has Outlook, and I know for a fact I got e-mail on various clients long before Outlook was a glint in the e-postman's eye.
MS has "Age of Empire". Microprose already did Civilization.
MS has X-Box. Sony and Nintendo already had products in this area.
MS Money is a Quicken clone.
Visio was already Visio before MS purchased them.
MS NetMeeting was innovated by another company (Databeam) and purchased by MS.
MSN Instant Messenger comes from IRC by way of AIM and ICQ.
For that matter, MSN is basicaly a value-added ISP, essentially AOL with butterflies.
Windows NT was really IBM's OS/2 technology for the most part.
DOS was purchased, and was, in any case, basically CP/M.
Windows post 95(b) provides Internet Access via TCP/IP, but they were probably the last player to enter that game.
Media Player is basically just RealPlayer.

Someone please enlighten me . . . apart from legal and marketting ploys, what has MS actually innovated? What technology did they come up with themselves? (As opposed to either buying someone else's tech and rebranding it, or cloning someone else's idea.) So far, only ones I see as possibles are MS Project and MS PowerPoint, but I have a feeling that these are purchased technology also. (I seem to recall reading as much, but can't find the reference at the moment.)

Any MS apologists care to give us a list of MS innovations?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[FrostedWheat]

Lets not forget that MS bought many of the things you listed, or bought the company developing it.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about this for the past few weeks as I was asked it in an interview and had said 'well of course--they spend tons of money on R&D'.

But the last truely innovative thing I could come up with which spawned directly from Microsoft was ole' BASIC.

Oh wait. Nevermind.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

innovate: to introduce something new;
make changes (often fol. by on or in): to innovate on another's creation.

Microsoft has taken all those things you have listed and made them so much better that they have actually became usable by everyone. And that is their biggest innovation.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[NFNNMIDATA]

Yeah, what MS has always done even in the DOS days is buy something someone else has done. This does 2 things: a) it eliminates a competitor automatically, and b) it precludes them from having to worry about innovation in technology so they can focus on innovating in the business realm in the ways you mention.

BTW, Googling reveals that PowerPoint came from the purchase of a company named Forethought in 1987. Not sure on Project, but it started back in the mid-80s as well.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

"MS has multi-tasking. OS/2 had it before MS did, and many OS's did/do it better even after MS finally got around to it."

So I guess the IBM mainframes out there running the world, with their Time-Sharing Option (TSO), were all single-threaded super-computers? Your lack of education in IT is alarming.

"Windows NT was really IBM's OS/2 technology for the most part."

Total horse puckey. Do better research before you fell wild comments.

"MS has Excel. Anyone heard of Lotus 1-2-3? Or VisiCalc?"

Yes, most of us have heard of VisiCalc. One thing that Excel was first at was the threaded spreadsheet. No one had it before Wes Cherry and his team put it into Excel.

"DOS was purchased, and was, in any case, basically CP/M."

Another one of your clumsy statements. Yes it was purchased, but it was not basically CP/M.

I am not an MS apologist - I hate MS. But I also hate inept uneducated remarks.

If you really want enlightenment, step out of your trailer and go to a library and borrow a few books and LEARN something on your own before you publish ridiculous remarks like these again.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Sam Gibson]

Fine:

Context Sensitive Menus (that's the right button on your little mousey thingy)
DHCP, yes they came up with this
Task Bar
The "Show Desktop" button

There's probably more, and I'm not even an apologist!. I can't believe that shit got modded up.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[gillbates]

Sure, I'll bite...

Visual Basic

IIRC, the idea that someone would design and build a program by drag and drop is uniquely Microsoft's idea. While there were plenty of code generators and prototyping tools out there, Microsoft was the first to extend the drag and drop metaphor to programming.

Not that I like Microsoft. But it took Borland and Sun nearly 10 years to catch up to the drag and drop program design paradigm, and they still didn't do it as well as VB. Their only saving graces were the fact that they backed their development tools with more powerful languages (C++, Java).

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[mjh]

Ummm... no. VB is a ripoff of NeXT's Interface Builder. Which NeXT came out with around 1990.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

"DOS was purchased, and was, in any case, basically CP/M."

Another one of your clumsy statements. Yes it was purchased, but it was not basically CP/M.

Ummm, DOS replicated many of the CP/M bios calls to extent where int 21 was almost the same as listed on the CP/M bios.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[kp833]

show desktop button? how pathetic is that!! you call that innovation. DHCP? now are you drunk?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Paul Lamere]

Clippy

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[bmajik]

you must have an interesting idea of innovation.

here's what m-w.com has to say:
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

apparently to use, innovation must be a brand new product category that has never been thought of before.

well gosh, when microsoft comes out with "MS Velvet Toy Unicorn Stuffed with BirdShit and a Large Green Salamander Tatoo", you better be first in line to praise Microsoft for coming up with a brand new type of thing that nobody else has done before (or do you know of some prior company working on shit-stuffed toys with tatoos ?")

Alternatively, you could make the argument that innovation is taking an idea that was poorly executed on, analyzing its shortcomings, fixing them, and really delivering on the possibilities.

Let's take the Xbox
Complaint: Developing for custom processors with shitty dev tools is hard; lack of ram makes games look like Shit (PS2)
Solution: Use industry standard hardware, use volume to keep costs low, use industry standard programming tools and libraries; add a boatload of ram
Result: XBox is one of the easiest platforms to develop for, one of the easiest platforms to port to, and visually and sonically crushes PS2. I'd call that innovation.

Let's take Excel.
Complaint: Lotus 1-2-3 is slow, doesn't take advantage of any kind of graphical environment, and is difficult to use
Solution: Make a spreadsheet that takes advantages of the new Windows graphical environment. Work solidly on making it perform fantastically, so that instead of letting macros run OVERNIGHT they can run significantly faster. Make writing formulas easier so that more people can use it. Do away withthe idea of "spread sheet programmer"
Result: Lotus who ?

Consider Windows NT
(which, first off, your comment about it being os2 is bullshit. MS was working on OS2 for IBM, not the other way around.)
Complaint: OS/2 was hard to setup and install, had no applications, had hellacious system requirements, had poor hardware support. Getting users to adopt it was impossible. Home users couldn't enjoy the benefits of modern computing that a modern OS could provide.
Solution: WNT introduced as a server only solution. Initial adoption rate extremely low, but core tenets of high reliability and integrated security architecture and SMP support are there. Prove the architecture, evolve the platform slowly, provide a Win16 and Win32 execution environment out of the box to run existing apps. As the platform matures and stabilizes, grow the installed base, add support for more commodity hardware, do more testing with applications starting at the high end and working towards the end-user. Continue to refactor and add functionality until you've got a viable desktop platform built off of enterprise quality internals.
Result: Server class features/operating environment brought to the average home desktop. NT 4 Workstation, W2k Pro, and XP Personal are the first desktop operating systems built off the guts of a server-class system. Mac OS X is the only other contender. Arguably, Linux is not currently a desktop contender, and DEFINITELY was not when NT4W and W2k Pro were released.

If you want to go innovate some shit-filled stuffed animals and beat MS to the next big innovation, be my guest.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[mla_anderson]

Innovation is more than creating new things, it is also doing old things better. I don't root for MS very often (I run Linux as my main OS at home), but what they did with Excel is definately innovation.

MS made the spreadsheet into more than an automated ledger. With user defined functions and VBA extensions they made it a very useful tool.

However nothing else comes to mind.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[NBarnes]

DirectX. I haven't had to worry about an IRQ conflict from a game since Win95. DirectX has vastly simplified game programming for the Windows platform. Any game developer that remember what it was like before DirectX, trying to support all the possible graphics and sound interfaces in one product, will tell you the world of good that DirectX has been. DirectX is direct forerunner of other graphics/sound/input/etc middlewares that are now industry-standard, including some that support the best kind of platform independant game development (i.e. SDL, Allegro, and, more than any, OpenGL).

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[vgaphil]

Microsoft's definition of innovation --> Other people's work.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Erik_Kahl]

Delphi came before VB and its better.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Erik_Kahl]

Direct X is not a M$ innovation. Its an implementation of an abstraction layer. It wraps hardware graphics chip functions with a nice layer of graphics library calls.

Like OpenGL...which came first

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Ben Hutchings]

Early versions of Visual Basic were similar to CanDo (see a comparison). CanDo was released on the Amiga in December 1989. Visual Basic was released in May 1991.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[tshak]

OpenGL is comparable to Direct3D, not DirectX. DirectX is a huge innovation, and even though earlier versions had their respective messes, it's gotten extremely elegant. It's really the only API in it's class. Again, OpenGL only addresses Direct3D, and not DirectSound, DirectShow, etc.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Q-Cat5]

I agree that MS is capable of pumping a large amount of cash and labor into any project they set their minds to. And yes, they've made (in some cases) significant improvements to software that was designed by others or created their own, sometimes improved, versions of some software. (Though some would argue that they do this in order to destroy competitors that don't want to sell out to Redmond.)
But they rarely, if ever, come up with any NEW ideas. In the sense that Ballmer used "Innovative", MS doesn't fit the description any better than OSS does. Both use concepts that are largely derivative but embellished.

I'll draw a parallel that may be a bit flameworthy here: Asian Automobiles in the 70's and early 80's were mostly not innovative at all. They used very available technology, very derivative designs, cheaper components, and so forth. But they improved their process, which, coupled with lower labor and materials costs, allowed them to sell cheaper. The cars weren't better, they mostly didn't do anything new, they simply exploited what was already available and made it CHEAP. So their innovation was in marketting, not in engineering. I think the same is true with MS. They're not really innovators, they're just good marketers who have a dominant mind-share.

As for OS/2, I'll be the first to say that IBM dropped the ball big time. It could have been great, but Gerstner didn't want to put the time and money into marketting it. The technology was superior in most respects to anything MS had to offer, but once again, MS had a hold on mindshare and aggressively protected that hold through marketting and aggressive BUSINESS tactics. They certainly didn't win on the basis of product quality, robustness, etc.

OS/2 Warp 4 was every bit as easy to install as a Win9x release, had every feature that a Win 9x box had, and was generally less likely to crash than 9x at that time. But it was too little too late, and IBM never put a tenth as much into advertising it as MS did with Windows. The whole picture of things could have been changed by IBm making some aggressive marketting stances and taking some risk, but Gerstner wouldn't have it. In marketting, not technology, did OS/2 die.

As far as OS/2's technology goes, Microsoft benefitted, during their partnership with IBM, by access to a lot of IBM's technology. NT would probably have taken longer to come out, and may not have had some of its strengths without Microsoft's access to IBM's engineering.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Trogre]

Erm, hypercard?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

The real forefather is probably SmallTalk Interface Builders that Xerox PARC was playing with back in the 70s. Don't forget that MSFT had plenty of PARC people working there.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[darekana]

I think your comparison to Asian Automobiles is an apt one except for the conclusion that their success was attributable to marketing. If anything Asian cars were poorly marketed at first and eventually had to deal with markets which were biased against them by the media and government.

I think they succeeded because they were better products than the competition. Their innovation was (eventually) making cars which lasted longer and used less gas among other improvements.

The software market isn't so much about how long software lasts or its memory usage, its about ease of use and functionality (at least for home users). So by giving customers more of that MS has captured a large share of the market. Their strong-arm and throw money at the problem tactics aside, they have built products which are generally easy to use and provide a lot of functionality.

Microsoft has been lucky so far because most of its major competition has not targeted its markets for very long or hard. IBM gave up and never really appealed to average users. Apple seems to only care about rich people. Maybe they will change their posture soon and start dumping Apples on the market... :)

Its good GM, Ford etc didn't throw in the towel quite as quickly as IBM and Apple have done. Having a pile of cash probably didn't hurt either...

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

Like someone else said, DirectX was huge for games on computers. MS was also responsible for .asf, which was hacked (only to remove bit-rate limitations, afaik) to make the DivX codec. So, games, and the most popular lossy video codec. Pretty good innovation.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[jlanthripp]

Context Sensitive Menus (that's the right button on your little mousey thingy)

MIT did this with X in the mid 1980's IIRC - and they used all *three* mouse buttons! :-)

DHCP, yes they came up with this

Ralph Droms (Bucknell University) and Ted Lemon (Internet Software Consortium) invented DHCP.

Task Bar

fvwm had this option 2 years before Windows 95 was unleashed, again IIRC (Remember fvwm95? That was fvwm configured to look like Windows 95 - a singularly bad idea, but it shows that this capability was there, ready and waiting, when Win95 was released - some misguided individual just wrote some configuration files and voila - your X desktop looks like the Beast from Redmond)

The "Show Desktop" button

Not exactly an earth-shattering invention, and anyone can (and probably did, long before MS thought of it) bind a button in (insert your favorite WM here) to a 6-line script that does the same thing, but I'll give them that one...

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Anonymous Coward]

NT4 didn't even support plug-n-pray until, what, service pack 4? How can you call that a desktop os?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[Andrew Lockhart]

All encompassing Digital Rights Management?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[demon]

What do IRQ conflicts have to do with DirectX? That was because of PCI and ISA-PnP (less of an issue now, since ISA is just about completely dead). Especially PCI, since it got rid of the stupidity of edge-triggered interrupts, replacing them with level-triggered interrupts. That allowed IRQ channels to be shareable. And that's an advantage whether you're running Windows or Linux, definitely not an OS feature.

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[demon]

Actually, Microsoft bought VB (it was originally a product called Ruby - no, different Ruby). As with pretty much all of Microsoft's other products, it was bought from someone else, stamped with Microsoft's name, and released as their own creation. About the only product that was of their own invention completely was MS Bob - and we all know how that turned out, don't we...

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate???

[TummyX]

The "Show Desktop" button


ROFL.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

scarry...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the wording...it seriously sounds like they never sat down and looked for security vulnerabilities before...very scarry.

In depth reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget all of Ballmer's statements. I'm more interested in the questions asked by the "reporter."

Did it seem odd to anyone else that these were all predicatable, softball questions? "How come you're going to beat Linux?" doesn't lead to an answer that qualifies as news. A real question would be something like "If an organization is moving an app from a Sun/SGI/HPUX server to x86 equipment, why would they move it to Win2003 Server instead of Linux?" Make him think and/or squirm.

Down with the Press-Release-As-News publishing paradigm.

Re:In depth reporting?

[Bassman59]

An AC points out the obvious: Did it seem odd to anyone else that these were all predicatable, softball questions? "How come you're going to beat Linux?" doesn't lead to an answer that qualifies as news. A real question would be something like "If an organization is moving an app from a Sun/SGI/HPUX server to x86 equipment, why would they move it to Win2003 Server instead of Linux?" Make him think and/or squirm.

See, these "reporters" subscribe to the same school of "professional journalism" as the people that cover the White House. Basically, a) They desire the access, so they don't ask the hard questions, and b) if the response didn't come from "official" sources, then it's unsubstantiated and as such can't be printed as "news."

My response? Well, as for a), the powers-that-be oughta be able to handled -- and to expect -- the hard questions. If they've got something to hide, it'll be clear.

And as for b), if a reporter is unwilling to dig, then he's not a reporter, and then "news" reduces to whatever lies the powers-that-be want to tell the public.

A shameful state of affairs.

Ballmer!

[Tighe_L]

Balmer is acting like someone who knows that their position is on shaky ground, it is very apparent in the article. This is my favorate quote:

"On the desktop, in developing countries, computer dealers will tell you that they sell Linux-based PCs, but in a lot of these places, Windows only costs $1 in the street."

"A Linux PC in most countries is a PC in which somebody is being encouraged to pirate Windows. We conducted some surveys about this in one large Asian country, where we found that, of all PCs that didn't have Windows installed on them when they were sold, 99 percent wound up with Windows on them within 30 days"

He is trying to justtifly why PCs here in the US should come with his operating system, liek M$ has rights to the x86 archetecture!

I wonder if he would say the same thing about Apple if they switched to using x86 chips...

Also the Xbox quote ti hilliarous, and he knows that the Xbox is failling miserably.

Are you happy with the growth of Xbox?

Yes. We're a clear No. 2 in the market.

How is that clear? Who said that, last time a I checked M$ and Nintendo were Neck and neck in the US and Europe, and in Japan Xbox was just failing

Nevermind the fact that Sony has 3/4 of the market.

HAA HAA HAA HAA!! WHAT A JOKE!

Separated at Birth?

[TheNumberSix]

Ballmer or Bahgdad Bob? Allow me to translate the article...

"There are no Linux infidels in server rooms! Never!"

"My feelings - as usual - Microsoft will slaughter them all"

"Our initial assessment is that Linux will die"

"I blame Slashdot - they are marketing for the open-source community!"

"God will roast their rpms/aptgets/portage in hell at the hands of Microsoft."

"They're coming to surrender or be burned in their cron jobs."

"No I am not scared of Linux, and neither should you be!"

"Be assured. Windows Server 2003 is safe, protected"

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that Linux has started to commit loss of market share under the walls of Windows Server. We will encourage them to commit more loss of market share more quickly."

"Now even the Kernel.org command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."

"I triple guarantee you, there are no open source programmers in Redmond."

"They're not even within 100 miles of secure. They are not in any place. They hold no place in server stability. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"Yes, the open source coders have advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them"

open source?

[zm]

There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it.

Of course, because they need access to the source code before they would be able to do any improvements... :-P

no, it's not

[g4dget]

If you compare the 20+ year history of Microsoft to the much younger open source movement,

Open source software has a much longer history than 20 years. Software, in a sense, started out open source as hardware companies didn't view it as being very valuable.

I think it may be fair to say that there's been more technical innovation from Microsoft.

And what would that "technical innovation" be? Just about every single product category, UI idea, feature, or technology Microsoft is using and touting was invented elsewhere: the GUI, the spreadsheet, WYSIWYG word processing, speech recognition, handwriting recognition, databases, networking, web browsing, etc.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but they *have* introduced some real innovations. Cheap, shared-SCSI-bus clustering comes to mind,

I'm sorry, I don't get it. People have been sharing disks via disk interfaces since the 1960's. Microsoft puts a feature into their system that allows this to be done over one specific disk interface (which, not coincidentally, was actually designed to support this). Where is the innovation here? Sounds like engineering to me, driven by marketing ("hey, guys, we need to compete with the mini computers and mainframes on this disk thing").

as does Active Directory (although AD is certainly inspired by NDS).

Again, where is the innovation? We had Kerberos, YP, and NIS, and before that, we had generations of directory services on mainframes.

While Microsoft certainly followed Apple into the era of the GUI, they've made notable improvements to the GUI.

Like what?

There are others, of course;

Please keep going--you haven't named one yet.

only the most rabid anti-MS zealot could claim that they've *never* done *anything* innovative.

Oh, I'm sure they must have done something "innovative", but whatever it was doesn't seem to be related to their bottom line or have had much of an impact on their products.

Re:no, it's not

[T.E.D.]

Oh, I'm sure they must have done something "innovative", but whatever it was doesn't seem to be related to their bottom line or have had much of an impact on their products.

You couldn't be more wrong. Microsoft pioneered the use of copyright law to restrict copying of software. They also pioneered the shrink-wrapped EULA.

They've also come up with some pretty innovative contractual innovations with their vendors, although they may have borrowed many of the concepts from what Standard Oil used to do back in the early 1900s.

None of this had benifitted anyone but their stockholers, mind you. But they were indeed innovations for which Microsoft should recieve all the credit they are due.

Re:no, it's not

[Keeper]

I find it strange that everyone here thinks that "innovation" == "new application that nobody has thought about before." If that's the way you think, then the guy who thought the patent office should be closed because he thought everything has already been invented was right. An improvement to an existing idea is an "innovation." "Revolutionary" would be "a new application that nobody has thought about before."

Yeah, that GUI was invented in the 80's. Are you saying that Win2k is no better than Xerox's GEM? MacOS 6? Win3.1? NT4?

What about spreadsheets -- you saying that Excel is not capable of doing anything more than 1-2-3, or that Word only has features that WP has?

Shoot, if you want to go by the criteria, the computing industry has been stagnant since the mid 80's.

Re:no, it's not

[g4dget]

Shoot, if you want to go by the criteria, the computing industry has been stagnant since the mid 80's.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

We have spent the last 20 years following Microsoft's journey of self-discovery, as Gates and Microsoft employees have slowly come up to speed on computer technology, starting from a state of nearly complete ignorance. The reason why they have been so successful in the market is because their ignorance was a perfect match to the ignorance of the public. That meant that Microsoft's "discoveries" always was a pretty good match for what the public was ready for.

Now, in 2003, Microsoft is finally beginning to approach the state of the art in a few areas.

Re:no, it's not

[aiken_d]

You know, I could get into specifics, but fact is you're apparently a manicheanist. Look it up.

If you think AD is anything like YP or NIS, you're pretty clueless. If you think AD is somehow related to Kerberos, well, I don't know what to say. AD is extensible in ways that NDS isn't, let alone YP or NIS. And Kerberos is a protocol for encrypted communications.

Cheap SCSI clustering also still stands. You're right that the SCSI protocol allows for this kind of use. Please point me to the MySQL or Postgres implementation of SCSI clustering that predates MS SQL 7.0, and I'll grant your point.

There's no real sense talking here, since you're firmly entrenched in the moral high ground. Other folks reading this, though, would do well to learn by example how *not* to come across as a zealot who ignores all facts and reality in the mad rush to rant and rave about the evil empire. MS is *totally* fucked up in many ways, but to claim that they've never done anything worthwhile is to cast yourself as a religous nut rather than a techy nut.

Cheers
-b

Re:no, it's not

[Anonymous Coward]

While Microsoft certainly followed Apple into the era of the GUI, they've made notable improvements to the GUI.

Like what?

What, are you stupid ? The DOUBLE CLICK man ! Before windows you had to click once to get things done. Now you can get the same job done with a simple double click.

Why does innovation matter?

[gfordham]

If linux gets the job done with a high level of reliablility and low cost. Why should I care if it doesn't look pretty. I'm not trying to pick up chicks with my linux box. All I know is that we don't have any money in the budget to get the job done using commercial products , but linux will do the job, and do a good job at that. In terms of innovation, the majority of IT tasks are fairly standard anyway. Resources have to be managed, files backed up, and routine things that can be automated are automated. That's about it, only when something new needs to be done that stresses the bounds of the hardware or the protocols your using, do you have to think about stuff like clustering or some other "innovative" solution. It Works, My .02 --Greg

Updates are definitely needed to old MS technology

[Futurepower(R)]

I think we need a new version of Steve Ballmer. At least a release version, please. We've been limping along on v. 0.46 too long. I hope the new version will have networking, instead of thinking of itself as a solitary god.

Ohter new technology we need from Microsoft:

TrueSpeak: So we don't have to hear the same old baloney.

WorkWell: Get rid of that mountain of sloppy code!

PlayTogether: Stop trying to run other people and technologies out of business. $20 billion is enough for one person. Why do you want more?

I'll say it again...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not innovations (can we all quit using that word? It doesn't apply here).
These are concepts that have existed on other platforms for donkey's years.

Re:I'll say it again...

[Eric Damron]

I won't argue the point. I'm just reporting what Microsoft considers innovations.

Another is that now the configuration files are in XML and are therefore "human readable." Seems like Linux has had plain text, "human readable" configuration files forever.

OS Research

[Josuah]

The truth is that we (the general public) really have no idea how innovative Microsoft Windows really is. This is because the OS is closed. Ballmer is correct when he disparages Linux because of its 20 year old design. There have been a lot of improvements, but the basic kernel and OS design decisions are the same as ones made 20 years ago. What would be innovative would be the inclusion of OS research over the years. I'm afraid Linux hasn't made huge strides there, although I'm no expert on Linux so I couldn't say that with a high degree of confidence. The internals of Windows could be very innovative from the perspective of OS researchers. Only the researchers who work at or with Microsoft could say.

Remember, UNIX (monolithic) was first, and there have been lots of other approaches to kernels since then. Microkernels (e.g. Mach, now in Mac OS X), Extensible, Exokernels, Virtual Machines, etc. Linux is still essentially a monolithic kernel, since if you want to change how something like VM works, you have to recompile new code in and reboot.

Innovate?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will WinBlows support more CPUs than I can count without taking off my shoes?

Is windows still designed for? ...

[BigFootApe]

developers?

Still hilarious after all these years.

"Communism" and open osource/free software

[00_NOP]

Let's just take a step back from all this and consider it from first principles --- imagine the Soviet Union had never existed, what did Marx mean by communism and how does it relate to free software?

Well,quite a bit actually. Marxists saw the communist society as one where people were freed from the realm of necessity - they worked for pleasure not cash (sounds like your average hacker).

Clearly such a society was one where goods were super-ambundant (unlike the USSR I may add) which is quite like software, as once you write a linux kernel it costs literally next to nothing to copy that to whomever wants it.

This what RMS means, I think, when he says software wants to be free.

These are the 'communist' ideas at the heart of free software and they are real and powerful. They have nothing to do with the Leninist butchery that was at the heart of the Soviet system.

Given that the experience of the USSR has effectively destoyed any rational debate about the term communism it is not much use as a debating point, but I'll just observe that it was Marx's view that the production process would advance so that more and more goods would be like software and that would create a communist society where the state would whither away.

Re:"Communism" and open osource/free software

[Anonymous Coward]

BZZZZT wrong answer. Information is not meant to be goods, property, scarce, destroyable etc..

Re:"Communism" and open osource/free software

[00_NOP]

I am afraid your response illustrates how stupid you are.

Go down to Wall Street and tell them that information is not a good, is not somebody's property is not scarce and not destroyable.

On the point you are trying to make - about the physicality of some goods and not others, well Marx himself described himself as a critical utopian.

Personally I am unconvinced by a lot of arguments about super abundance, but ask yourself this: is it wholly inconceivable that at some point in the future we will not be able to fully automate the growing and the supply of food to every person in the planet with human intervention limited to merely cooking for pleasure?

Few rational people would give the answer that it is wholly inconceivable.

Re:"Communism" and open osource/free software

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, say something vaguely leftwing on /. and get modded down. But "flamebait"? Get out of here.

Mozilla?

[KillerHamster]

Mozilla trying to catch up with IE? Maybe it came out much later, but from what I've seen of it, Mozilla is years ahead of IE in terms of stability, standards compliance, speed, and even features (tabbed browsing, ad blocking, etc.)

rethinking the command line, MS style.

[decapentaplegic]

I'd be very impressed if Microsoft actually came out with a command-line only version. The fact that "it's a very tangled subsystem" makes me wonder how possible that would be

You're not thinking like a propper bloatware author.

Sure, one usually thinks of a GUI sitting on top of a CLI. But why should we be limited? Having a command line doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that the user gets lower level access. Why not write a command line interface that sits on top of, and manipulates, the GUI? The user opens a terminal window and types a command to move a file to a new folder. In the background, the pointer opens and navigates some windows then drags the file over.

Trust me, the suits will love it!

Re:ya baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

You think bombing the fuck out of everything and paying violent warlords millions for support is good for afghanistan?

You are the coward. Gee its real hard for America with a military budget of 800 billion to go around conquering third world countries! What bravery!

You are such pussies you are scared of North Korea!

After getting your ass kicked in the last Korean War it looks like it's too scary for big bad America so you'll go beat up some Muslims and steal their oil!

You guys are such heros!

What kind of jingoistic brainwashing do they have you chumps under? sheesh.

How old?

[1337G]

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system.

How old is x86 again?

You can already do this...

[fudgefactor7]

it's called "Headless install." Check it out sometime...

wonder what they'll name window-less windows?

[TheRealRamone]

ms-walls?

just once

[RestiffBard]

I'd like to see somone from MS say "golly, Linux ain't windows but it sure as heck is impressive." I just wish the hate and animosity just for the sake of hate and animosity would go away so we can all get back to work and fun. I say this to both camps, MS and OSS.

Re:just once

[JKR]

Er, they pretty much just did - read the ZD story.

Jon.

Re:just once

[RestiffBard]

ya got me. I didn't rtfa, just the /. propoganda. now what about the the OSS side? :)

Here are the MS innovators

[C. Mattix]

Here is a good searchable database of Microsoft innovations (ie. Publications) out of Microsoft Research.

Re:Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI

[Whyzzi]

I agree. But have you ever heard of "wrappers"? If graphics card companies can wrap OpenGL commands into the DirectX counterparts, then you bet Microsoft can hack GUI calls from the command line.

Re:Surprisingly, CNET asked interesting questions.

[Keeper]

Oh please, home versions of WinXP + Office do not cost $500. OEM versions will cost you half that, if you yourself ordered the software. Do you honestly think that HP pays retail prices for software?

When was the last time you parted together a $300 system with a printer and a monitor? I'd like to see a spec list and prices for that system, because I could sure use a few of them. Hell, an xbox costs more than $300 to make...

Look in the weekend paper. You'll see adds for computers the same price points they were 2 years ago. Instead of 500mhz cpu's and 128mb of ram, they've got ghz cpus and half a gig of ram. The amount of money people are willing to spend on a computer hasn't changed. What you get for that money has.

It was Andersen not Anderson.

[BoomerSooner]

I am however impressed you got Arthur correct. BTW Arthur Andersen didn't innovate, they got in trouble for "cooking the books" as it's called in the industry. That wasn't an Andersen "innovation" as you call it. Having been in several accounting firms and several large corporations, you can be assured that there are a significant amount of companies "cooking the books".

Re:It was Andersen not Anderson.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point. This is MS's way of "Cooking the Books" of MSN traffic numbers.

The reason people contribute is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear this all the time, but it's just not true.

The reason so many contribute to open source is because we realize that many man-years are being wasted by duplicating eachothers efforts in companies all over the world.

We want to advance software to new heights and stop recreating the wheel, and instead, create for real!

It's that simple.

The comparison itself is telling...

[ClarkEvans]

That he is even *comparing* Microsoft, a corporation with Billions in market capitalization, and millions of dollars in the bank with a loose-group of dirty hackers who don't even bother to shower is funny in itself.

Microsoft is so powerful that other companies arn't a threat... its only threat comes from a non-corporation. Ask any economist or financial avisor that this would happen about 5 years ago and they would have bet the farm against you...

Linux is for Software Pirates

[MBCook]

"A Linux PC in most countries is a PC in which somebody is being encouraged to pirate Windows."

I think this sums up what MS is thinking. It seems very clear to me from reading the interview that they don't see Linux as that big a threat, or at least anything serious. We know that they are running scared in some areas, but untill they can admit to themselves what Linux really is and what it's going to do to them if they don't change, they are in trouble. Good thing they have a few billion in cash to burn while they try to figure out which way is up.

What was that, Mr. Sahaf?

[LazloToth]

"Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in. I would argue that our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that community." - Ballmer


Oh, now I get it - - innovation is better fostered in the isolation and seclusion of a monopolist citadel where developers churn out adopt-and-extend application code that locks users into ever more expensive - - and buggy - - products. Why didn't I see this before?

boo, poor troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I've made better trolls half asleep and drunk. Try again.

Re:boo, poor troll

[Overly Critical Guy]

There's a greater scheme at work of which you are unaware. Be patient.

Re:boo, poor troll

[Anonymous Coward]

bahahaha.. get over yourself

Re:boo, poor troll

[Overly Critical Guy]

I don't see that happening. It gets under your skin and gives you a reason to post anonymously.

Balmer: next Iraqi Information minister...

[mok000]

Rumors are that the US goverment is going to appoint Balmer as the new Information minister for Iraq. "We need someone to match the format of former information minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf in his formidable communication of current events" a spokesman for the Bush administration comments...

My favorite quote...

[Captain_Stupendous]

"It looks really good on PowerPoint! Reality is never quite as good."

...No kidding.

My Favorite Quote

[Pharmboy]

They're much more compatible, they're created from the same code base. It's the same application interface, except that the server is extended. The same drivers work in both. Looking from underneath or above, they're the same.

Then why the *fuck* do I have to pay thousands to connect 30 people to a $199 piece of software?

Im not a MS basher, Im a pissed of MS customer.

Target Audience for Server 2003?

[blunte]

Who is the target audience for Windows 2003 server? Is it Windows 4.0 users? The Unix crowd? The initial market will probably evolve into three categories.

Category No. 1 will be NT 4.0 users. There are a lot out there, and I think we offer an important step forward. It's not like a client, where everybody might want to upgrade at the same time, but I think we've set up a real wave there.

No. 2, there are people moving applications from expensive gear onto cheap gear. I think Windows Server 2003 is going to look good to a lot of that community. Those are high-performance computing applications, or applications running on Solaris or AIX.

And No. 3, people who want to put in new applications or people who want to support new working information-type scenarios--and people are always putting in new applications. They really are.

Conspicuously missing from his list is current Server 2000 users. I'm shocked at his openness and (accidental?) honesty on this issue.

MSFT shareholders should take note. MS doesn't expect many 2000 users to upgrade to 2003. Server 2003 isn't going to be a blockbuster seller.

And counting on NT4 server folks to upgrade is probably being too optimistic. Think of how many Code Red infected NT4 servers are still out there. That tells me the people running them don't care, or don't do enough with the servers to feel the need to upgrade.

Sigh ....

[UltraWide]

Use the Operating System that fit your needs.
Linux here Windows there .. who cares as long as I have a job and can support my family.

I am getting tired of all this Microsoft versus Linux discussions.

I am a Unix techie .. I am a *REALLY* competent Unix techie ... I don't like Windows but I don't hate it either. The company I work for have all sorts of different OS:es .. Linux, Unix, Windows, OS/400, MVS, OpenVMS ... hell they got everything..
The thing is to integrate all of these platforms and make em work together, THAT is what matters.

Trapped

[Saint Stephen]

Being hooked on Windows is like being hooked on a drug. You're so trapped in your worldview that you just cannot imagine anything else. Doesn't mean you're evil, but it does mean sometimes you become a fiend :-)

Re:Trapped

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with Linux...

Same with Mac...

Same with... everything.

Then there are those of us that realize that things like this happen and don't get trapped into anything and don't make statements like you just did, implicating yourself in your own comment.

Re:Trapped

[Saint Stephen]

You're being all general and practing ethical relativism, but I'm talking about something specific. People in general who use Winders all the time do not use other stuff; it is factually incorrect to say people in general who use Linux or Macs don't use Winders. It's absurd to argue with that; otherwise the numbers wouldn't be what they are.

Now go ahead and say your thing and be all uppity.

Uptime

[FreeLinux]

You can run performance monitor, there is an uptime counter.

You can get uptime via SNMP

You can look at the event log and see when the server was started and figure it out manually.

You can use one of several third party utilities that make it as simple as typing 'uptime".

You can track and monitor your servers, maybe even good old fashioned pecil and paper.

Re:Uptime

[kiwimate]

You can enter the following command at a prompt:

NET STATISTICS SERVER | MORE

The first line or two tells you when the server service was started. (Technically, you can also use WORKSTATION.)

Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[$nyper]

Okay I have had this beef with Microsoft for a long while now and have even posted the feature request about a dozen times over the past three years.

How difficult would it be to change the Windows File Server's interpretation of a connecting Client's "delete" command to translate as "move." As head of an IT department for a very large company with a lot of corporate executives and administrative staffers I must get close to 100 requests a week for file retrieval due to accidental file deletion. It some times takes an hour to recover a single file from the backup tapes. I have three simple words for the Windows Server development team "Network Recycle Bin."

I have tried third party software like "Undelete" but it is just crap and never seems to work the way we need it to. Why is this simple to understand pain in the butt for SysAdmins of a Windows box not available and continually overlooked on the release of every Service Pack and new version? My staff and I have much better things to do with our weeks than file retrieval from backup tape.

I have been personally using UNIX for years now and I can easily change a users profile to redefine the "rm" command to mean "mv /trash" so why can I not do the same simple thing in Windows.

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[rainer_d]

How difficult would it be to change the Windows File Server's interpretation of a connecting Client's "delete" command to translate as "move."

Where's your problem ?

I usually setup the recycle bin on the servers to 0 KB and "immediate delete", so that it doesn't take up 10% of the drive, like the default.

Just tell 'em that "delete is delete" and the recovery from backup requires you to bill the time on their cost center.

After some time, they'll learn to use their computers.

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[nifboy]

After some time, they'll learn to use their computers.

Thing is, I don't want to *learn* to use my computer, I just want to use it. See the difference?

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[rainer_d]

Thing is, I don't want to *learn* to use my computer, I just want to use it. See the difference?

Yeah. Just like those who "....just want to drive a car" instead of learning to drive it properly and adhere to the traffic rules.

I actually wanted to say "learn how to use...".

Would you hand out driving licences to people who say they "just need to know how to drive to work and back home" and thus only need to know the traffic-signs and -rules that occur on the way thereto ?

I wouldn't and thankfully the current legislation here prevents that ;-)

Time for the computer driving-licence :-)

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you're new around here. Expecting users to put work into understanding computers is only reasonable when it's linux being discussed. Everything else is -1, Flamebait. Has no one ever explained the Slashdot hypocrisy to you before?

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[nifboy]

I don't just want to drive a car. I just want to get from point A to point B. So I use public transportation, gets all the work done for me.

Of course, I also think the average end-user would be intimidated by an open-ended system such as *nix, in much the same way sixteen-year-olds sometimes feel intimidated driving for the first time. They're afraid they're going to crash their ride into a wall and blow up.

Re:Windows Server Feature Requesting My Shiny Hiny

[Anonymous Coward]

How difficult would it be to change the Windows File Server's interpretation of a connecting Client's "delete" command to translate as "move." As head of an IT department for a very large company with a lot of corporate executives and administrative staffers I must get close to 100 requests a week for file retrieval due to accidental file deletion. It some times takes an hour to recover a single file from the backup tapes. I have three simple words for the Windows Server development team "Network Recycle Bin."

What you want is "Shadow Copies of Shared Folders." Not only does it allow your users to recover deleted files, but it also lets them roll back files to a previous date/time. It's a new part of W2k3 Server, so can I be any more on topic?

This is probably part of "Do More With Less" - as in you can stop spending all your time recovering files and everyones lives are better.

Likely... :-)

[fred666]

There is a Windows NT with a command line interface, it's called Reactos, and it is not sponsorized by Micro$oft... :-)

Re:Ut-oh, looks like you're not a part of the crus

[RoLi]

What are you going to do?

Slowly phase out the MS stuff and slowly introduce OSS.

And that's exactly what most organizations are doing: First, Linux is only used as the webserver and nothing else. Later the fileserver, later the printserver. In the meantime OpenOffice is introduced and when it's time to replace hardware, the switch to Linux is done.

It takes a long time, maybe 10 years to fully make the transition, but it happens. 70% of domains (actually 75% of active domains) are already running Apache

you just called windows "sexy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude - you're a fucking dork... and operating system is "sexy" ?

christ - wtf... do you jerk off to the windows logo at night? do you dress your cd's in lingerie?

what a fucking tool...

windows is sexy...

Re:you just called windows "sexy"?

[brad-x]

Are you twelve years old? I don't see any need for such a lack of civility.

Come back when you've cultivated a dignified way of interacting with people, please.

Absolutely !

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to admit Microsoft puts up truly innovative bugs. BSOD being their most important innovation.

Re:Says nothing

[glenebob]

>> "Microsoft does work permitting that you have money"

EVERYTHING works permitting you have enough money. Enough money would get Toyota to write custom software. So what?

Re:Can't develop on Linux? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a developer on Linux Windows and a little Mac. I can say with some authority that developing on Linux is far more difficult both technically and legally than developing on Windows. Windows may be more expensive if you are a starving student that wants to write a custom chat application, or some underfunded professor trying to crunch numbers in a custom C app in your lab. But anything above that and Windows is far faster, and /yes/ more stable to develop commercial software (and non-micro scale internal software) for than "Linux".

Every developer I've ever met or dealt with RL who isn't some original UNIX hacker luddite and has experience (Real experience, not just spending a weekend trying out vissual basic)thinks so. Linux dev tools are like using rocks and sticks. Worse, the documentation for various packages and libraries is insanly out of date, innaccurate or completely non-existant.

Our coding projects go 3x faster on Windows than on Mac or Linux. Those are the facts.

You can start ignoring them.... now.

Onward Penguin soldiers, marching as to war....

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

In this particular situation the solution is to fire 9 Windows-only support people and hire 1-2 better ones that can support multiple systems (and pay them better, too).

That's only "the" solution if you're already a "believer."

A sad fact you may not choose to believe is that in many cases Windows can be made to do the job. It's not pretty, and it's not cheap, and it's not low maintenance but it can be made to work. It's also worth noting that ingenuity is not the sole copyleft of the FOSS community. With stacks of cheap coldswap enclosed, Ghosted Windows image hard drives available, you can run a pretty large Customer Care system with excellent uptime. When someone has a software problem, you go to their computer, cold swap the drive, and when it comes up it just works. You can figure out what virus they got, or what other crap they did to it later. The fact that Linux Netboots are cheaper/better/cooler doen't make it the only solution.

The fact that your previous hiring needs were based solely on a strong Windows skill set doesn't mean your people are incompetent, any more than hiring mono-lingual people implies that they are all stupid.
So, it would seem to me, the idea that "the" solution is to go on a firing spree to get rid of eight formerly valuable employees because of your personal affinity for the FOSS solutions base, won't win you any awards for good management.

If the FOSS community is going to take over the real world, we need to:
a) Start living in it.
b) Show some reasonable respect for the needs of others that do.

OTOH

[Kjella]

This is a HUGE advantage that a lot of OSS people simply don't have; whoever's coding NiftyApp gets bored around version 0.64 and drops it, and meanwhile, some other guys is making GniftyApp 0.4 because he doesn't feel like working with the first guy.

More likely, he'll fork NiftyApp and go off on his merry way. Building on other peoples work has always been how OSS has been able to succeed. It's not like a closed-source program where the company developing NiftyApp would can it, and the company making GniftyApp would start from scratch. The only way an open-source program will die is if *noone* wants to work on it - in which case it's probably not worth doing anyway.

Kjella

Unsettling

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit, after perusing this entire well-developed thread and seeing how it spins out of control as most Slash Dot threads, that I am saddened.

Most comments serve Steve Ballmer well. He was given a podium and, smart billionaire that he is, used the opportunity wisely: He set out to piss you all off, and he succeeded better than even his devious mind could have imagined.

Nowhere in this mutated ugly thread is there anything but hurt feelings and spiteful emotional replies. Nowhere! OK, there are one or two calm thoughts on the matter at hand, but it is surprising how little Slash Dotters can contribute in the way of constructive thought. It is shameful!

Open sourcers, get this, and get it good: Your little platform idea has 1% tops of the entire user-end market. 1% tops. Linux is OLD now in IT terms, and you still have only 1%, if that. You have had your chance. If you were going to be a success, it would have happened long ago.

You can go on doing what you are doing now, but stop thinking you are going to change the world. You can't even change 2% of it.

Re:Unsettling

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit, after reading your ill thought out comment that I am saddened.

Steve Ballmer is CEO of a convicted monopoly and outright lies and untruths do not wash well with the slashdot crowd.

Microsofties, get this, and get it good: Your bug ridden platform idea has 1% tops of the computer literate market. That's 1% tops of people who are anything but point and click literate. Windows is OLD now in IT terms, it had it's chance but failed.

Microsoft can go on doing what they are doing now, but stop thinking they are going to be a serious contender in anything other than the hobbled, DRM enabled embedded OS market for content delivery.

Re:Unsettling

[MacDaffy]

Open sourcers, get this, and get it good: Your little platform idea has 1% tops of the entire user-end market. 1% tops. Linux is OLD now in IT terms, and you still have only 1%, if that. You have had your chance. If you were going to be a success, it would have happened long ago.

Did you forget that Mac OS X is Open Source, too? It is, you know. Innovations in Linux and Mac OS X are complementary. You can get industrial-strength Linux and Darwin distros for free... Apache beats the crap out of Windows IIS/2003 and it's FREE!!! You're wrong about the "one per cent." You're wrong about that "little platform idea."

And that last little fillip of yours? The "you can't even change 2%" of the world nastiness? Add up the market share of Linux and Mac OS X vis-a-vis new installations. Think about why Steve Ballmer would dignify open source with a mention if it weren't on his reptilian mind 24-7. Think about why Microsoft is advertising that features in Windows 2003 Server are turned off by default. Think about why the words "command line" are being mentioned in conjunction with a Windows product announcement. Think about the full-court press Microsoft is putting on open source (and don't ignore their own published memos).

Open source has already changed Microsoft, bucko. And that's a hell of a lot more than "two per cent" of the world. Eat it!

Innovation?

[clambake]

Just a little thing, but hey, as long as we're on the innovation kick... When exactly did IE get intgrated pop-up blocking? Oh yeah, it didn't. It's probably a 10-lines of code fix, and coulr be rolled out with any of the fifty IE patches that have come out since Mozilla had it standard... but not there. Why not? Well, innovation for Microsoft means innovation that somehow benifits Microsoft directly, while innovation in the OSS community means innovation that helps the "customers".

Command line?

[ccbaxter]

Will you type 'Start' to shut down?

Dude, where's my Karma?

Sun sells what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun sells FreeBSD? Since when? Anyway, GPL = IP theft.

Amiga

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the late 80s I had an Amiga 1000 with a 3rd Party 10 MB HD that I bought for about $700. To save space on my HD and because I prefered running in a shell rather than pointing and clicking, I deleted the whole GUI Interface (called Intuition, I believe) and ran all my programs from the CLI.

So I'm pretty sure the CLI was not built on top of the GUI.

Re:Amiga

[Ben Hutchings]

You can't delete the GUI, because it's in ROM. Maybe you deleted some of the GUI apps and disabled startup of the Workbench, but that hardly counts as deleting the GUI.

Re:Microsoft, first to implement CLI on top of GUI

[leifm]

Best post ever.

Microsoft aren't realy that bad!

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to stop slagging off Microsoft and start realising that they are the ones that have pushed the computing industry to where it is today. If Microsoft didnt exist, you would all be slaggin of Linux...

Re:Surprisingly, CNET asked interesting questions.

[sheldon]

"It seems crazy to me that consumers are willing to pay $800 for a $300 computer with Windows and Office. Eventually consumers will figure this out too."

I bought a DVD player over a year ago for $200. In the past year I have spent roughly $500 on DVD titles.

I bought a CD changer back in 1997 for $200. Over the past 6 years I've probably spent $4,000 on CD titles.

Consumers are very used to software costing more than the hardware. The hardware exists to run the software, nothing more. You're understanding of the market is limited to the hobbyist world. Surprise, surprise, the computing market has developed well beyond that small niche.

Does that mean Software will continue to cost what it does today? No, obviously not considering software does not cost what it did 10 years ago. Microsoft seems to even be understanding the principle of "many nickels being better than a few dimes" with the student edition of Office. Such changes in pricing will likely continue forward.

"The real problem will be when the users don't immediately install Windows on the computer, and are happy with Linux. "

Yeah, any day now that's going to happen. *cough*

Mod Parent Up

[Hobart]

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate??? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 02:58 PM April 25th, 2003 (#5811597)

"MS has multi-tasking. OS/2 had it before MS did, and many OS's did/do it better even after MS finally got around to it."

So I guess the IBM mainframes out there running the world, with their Time-Sharing Option (TSO), were all single-threaded super-computers? Your lack of education in IT is alarming.

"Windows NT was really IBM's OS/2 technology for the most part."

Total horse puckey. Do better research before you fell wild comments.

"MS has Excel. Anyone heard of Lotus 1-2-3? Or VisiCalc?"

Yes, most of us have heard of VisiCalc. One thing that Excel was first at was the threaded spreadsheet. No one had it before Wes Cherry and his team put it into Excel.

"DOS was purchased, and was, in any case, basically CP/M."

Another one of your clumsy statements. Yes it was purchased, but it was not basically CP/M.

I am not an MS apologist - I hate MS. But I also hate inept uneducated remarks.

If you really want enlightenment, step out of your trailer and go to a library and borrow a few books and LEARN something on your own before you publish ridiculous remarks like these again.

Who says we will only

[Anonymous Coward]

make OS X available for mac ?

Remember this:

The OS X kernel runs on x86 at the moment.
Go and check it, it is on the web.

Sun commercialized FreeBSD???? WRONG

[aphor]

Steve Ballmer is not a technology authority. He doesn't know the family tree. He read the Cliff's Notes on Unix terminology right before he gave this inerview, and you can expect him to screw up a few details.

What you need to zero in on here is "the way things are structured today", meaning the status-quo, as if things aren't going to break that structure, as provided by Microsoft monopoly.

We need to vote for a President who will prosecute antitrust cases. The "structure" is GW's leash on the DoJ.

Looking at the lawyers??

[dmccarty]

Why is there no command line only version?
We're looking longer term to see what can be done, looking at the lawyers and what's available at each lawyer and how do we make it much closer to the thing the Linux guys have [...]

Woah, did anyone else read it like I did? Good thing Linux doesn't have very many lawyers.

Microsoft IS Innovative

[jefu]

Look at the record...

They've invented new file formats - almost on the order of one every year for every major product.

They've invented a way to be a monopoly (not just my opinion - the courts agreed) and to use monopolistic tactics to crush their competitors and still be considered to be heroic in doing so.

They've invented methods that enable them to require people to pay for software they don't use.

They've invented licenses that deprive their customers of their rights.

They are getting very good at spinning FUD. Sure they didn't invent it but they've certainly gone a long way toward perfecting it (I suspect Mr. Goebbels would be proud of how far they've managed to push it and how well they use it especially since he also enjoyed calling his enemies "communists".)

They've invented .NET (whatever that is) and invented a wonderful new, tremendously innovative programming language called C# that is clearly The Most Important Advance In Programming Languages Since Java.

The've invented all sorts of new and fun ways to use email to spread information around the network. That their critics often call this "worms" or "viruses" clearly indicates just how hard up the critics are.

Microsoft Bob. Are any comments even needed on that?

There are countless other minor innovations as well, of course. They invented the web browser As We Now Know It. The spreadsheet As We Now Know It. The What You See Is A Pain to Build But Its What You Get word processor As We Now Know it. A whole new set of standards for the Web As We Now Know It. Kerberos (As We Will Know It). Networked file systems As We Now Know Them. And the list goes on and on...

And, finally, they've invented Slashdot - oh, I don't mean they actually wrote the code (though give them a few years and they can fight Al Gore over who gets the credit), but without MS where would Slashdot be?

Now how can anyone deny such innovation?

fanboy here:

[Anonymous Coward]

I am NOT a programmer, Been a fanboy of linux since day one, because I wanted to "teach myself Unix".
I started as a PC hardware technician, and had to turn down a lucrative contract maintaining a small SCO network way back in 94, that galvanized me to stop sitting on my brain and start experimenting.

Yep, basic greed drove me to struggle with slackware, caldera, redhat5.0, etc. and I was awed with each new gizmo that was released. I actually support the OSS comunity by buying the boxed sets as I upgrade. Now I run BSD, Linux, and Solaris8 on my home network ( 2 servers 1 work station and a firewall), and additionally have one dedicated win98 game machine, one dual boot W2k/XP box ( grub bootloader) and a dual boot w98/RH9 laptop.

Now would I cry if MS filed chapter-11? Yes, No and Yes:

Yes my 401-K would suffer!

No, since that would be something self-inflicted.

Yes, there would be a bunch of dirtbag MCSEs trying to create bogus Linux credentials, and devaluating the credentials out there with "cramsessions and flashcards"

Since when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do security flaws equal innovation?

DX

[Bruha]

Now if they ported DX over to Linux I'd be happy that way maybe more companies could port games and even MS Game Studios would profit.

Re:DX

[AnimeFreak]

Stop living in a fantasy world.

good advice

[zenyu]

If that's the way you think, then the guy who thought the patent office should be closed because he thought everything has already been invented was right.

Who was that, maybe he wasn't the fool we thought he was. Remember we eventually warmed up to the other big plunders in our history, the Luisiana and Alaska purchases..

Re:good advice

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that countries other than the USA have patent offices, don't you?

idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

you remark is idiotic. The people that work at Microsoft have used UNIX systems before. The Hotmail group used BSD for their servers for years. They know what they need for a server OS. They also know their priorities. They weren't the servers up until now, before people ran servers on specialized hardware. Now that Intel is making commodity server hardware like the Itanium platform Microsoft can make software for servers.

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_result s. asp?resulttype=noncluster

A couple things

[codethug]

I decided to heap a couple things together to consolidate the abuse.

Command Line: I'm not stupid enough to try to sell Windows as modular. However, I've worked with XP Embedded before and the entire OS is broken up into 10,000 components that can be used to build a custom configuration. Albeit a sizable portion of those components are drivers, and you do find dependancies that are counterintuitive. The point being that Windows does not have to have the bloated Explorer shell, Outlook Express and MSN Explorer. WinPE, used by OEMs and large corps for deployment, etc.. ships without a graphical shell. Of course they could ship a command line only version. The only question is would they, that I don't know.

Crashing - BSOD My Windows 95 machine use to crash - plenty. My Windows 2000 Server machine does not. News at 11.

Also in news: This is nitpicking but the two security issues linked are not related to Windows 2003 Server. They are for clients produced by Microsoft yes, but I think the intent was to join security issues with the new Windows OS by inference.

Re:A couple things

[Anonymous Coward]

That flicker and almost inperceptible reload of the Win2K gui that you probably haven't caught yet is windows crashing, they have just hidden it better

MS distro

[xv4n]

1. Wouldn't it be just easier for MS to release their own Linux distro? just wondering.

MS Innovation

[linuxislandsucks]

MS Innovation that Steve Ballmer is referring is normally called,

SECURITY FLAWS!!!!!!!!

MS took short term golas to code both MS Windows and MS winNT ..its only innovation was ignoring Security

We wil not have an effective CyberCzar in HomeLand Security until MS Windows is rewritten or outlawed as insecure..

Come on President Bush put your money where you mouth is..

99 percent wound up with Windows on them within 30

[the-build-chicken]

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that.

mislabled interview. Iraqi Minister of Information

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this interview was accidently mislabled as
being an interview with Steve Balmer. This interview
was actually with the Iraqi Minister of Information,
who has been recently hired by Microsoft as the new
Microsoft Minister of Information.

M$ and age

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the company itself pushing 30? When Bill released PC-DOS wasn't that early to mid 70's? (That 70's show, comes to mind...)

And No, M$ is NOT a fine wine that gets better with age. (whine, maybe...)

The company soured too much for me, lots of promise to bring tech out from the hobbyist camp and into the 'real' world.

Once the door is open, forget closing it.

ball-merde

[kortex]

troll? perhaps. but ballmer is nothing but a lip flapping cocksucker figurehead for a company whos only "innovations" have been taken from other people, either bought borrowed or stolen. I recently sat through a Windows 2003 "Bootcamp" and every single "new" feature I was privvy to was something they ripped directly from the open source community. perfect example - "IIS 6.0 is 140% percent faster, with HTTPD.SYS running from the kernel layer rather than the application layer." Uh, hello - TUX?! whatever. those guys piss me off to no end.

further quoteth the Iraqi Info Mini:

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no innovation within a hundred miles of Linux! The Open Source infidels are being crushed at the [Redmond] city gates!"

MS Bob

[dusanv]

Please keep going--you haven't named one yet.

How about MS Bob? Ha ha, open source loser!

Re:MS Bob

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most of the ideas in Bob were originated by the wife of Bill Gates, and since she's not a Microsoft employee it could be argued that even Bob wasn't an MS innovation.

not true

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD was around long before Linus got started. He could've used the BSD fileutils, etc. Don't be so GNU-centric.

My summary

[return 42]

Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Wonderful fud,
Glorious fud...

Re:My summary

[MacDaffy]

Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Wonderful fud,
Glorious fud...

Or, to more closely quote Michael Flanders and Donald Swann and their Hippo Song (how appropriate):

FUD! FUD! Glorious FUD!
Nothing quite like it for chilling the blood
So, follow, O! Follow along with callow
And wallow in gloooor-ious FUD!

(And here's to Thomas Andrew Lehrer, while I'm at it)

Re: Another outright lie:

[Anonymous Coward]

more importantly, you don't even have to go to IBM, you can just fix it yourself...

Oh no!

[Zakabog]

Some people say it is an advantage that Linux gets built in all of these little pieces. The fact is that if you want to do some kind of integrated innovation that touches the kernel, that touches the user interface--there is no way. Maybe Linus (Torvalds) can control the innovation in the piece called the kernel, but there are many pieces.

Yeah I totally agree, what good is a bunch of little pieces. What happens when I want X to crash and take down my entire computer? It's harder to do that when the GUI isn't tied into the kernel, it's so annoying all this stability. And what if I wanted Mozilla to run nasty scripts that would clear out my hard drive? How am I supposed to do this when mozilla isn't tied into my operating system?

But really, it'd be nice if he gave some kind of example where integrating the kernel and the UI is a good thing. Also, there may be many pieces, but there are also many people, linus torvalds isn't the only person working on linux and linux software.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

My conclusion is that they pay Ballmer entirely too much. These people come off as typical "yes man in a suit" material.

Innovation

[jmorris42]

> Oh, I'm sure they must have done something "innovative",

One word. Bob.

wait wait wait

[standsolid]

form the articel

>>> We're still finding issues. But all of the newer code has got to be ten or a hundred times better.We're still finding issues. But all of the newer code has got to be ten or a hundred times better.

so not only are they admitting the code is 100 times better (more secure) than a normal XP install, but they are still finding problems... They released a beta...

Long Run vs. Short Run

[knowledgepeacewi]

That's where I'm coming from, mainly. That's the angle from which Microsoft is going to come and attack Linux, too. They're going to present Linux as though it tried and failed miserably to appeal to the userbase.
This and your other points are valid concerns of the GPL phenomenon.

But the one thing that Open Source has that a For Profit doesn't have is time. Time is an endless resource. It allows a programmer to design a system correctly the first time (and if not keep working on something until it works)

Open Source doesn't have to answer to Stockholders and isn't rushing to put out a product. It can do what all programmers want to do...release code without bugs. I want perfect(TM) code. And if someone then takes my "pefect code" and in typical UNIX fashion mixes it with other tiny pieces to build another application, that programmer has the guarantee that my program does what I say it does and if they find a bug (s)he can fix it.

A problem with a lot of people and businesses today is that they want the quick fix now and won't invest for the long term. As with sports, you have to focus on fundamentals and if the fundamentals are strong, you'll succeed.

Investing in open source will always give you back what you put in and most often it will give back many times as much effort as you put in, as others see a benefit in what you are doing and want to help.

Investing in MS will give you software for 2 years that (historically) has been buggy and takes the control away from the user. You're burning your money.

no plagiarism here

[Anonymous Coward]

He/She posted it as Anonymous. Plagiarism means to take credit for someone else's work. I don't see anyone taking credit.

It would be nice to reference the original author though.

plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
and is presented as being your own work
2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as
if they were your own [syn: plagiarization, plagiarisation,
piracy]

Re:no plagiarism here

[GnarlyNome]

Copy one persons writings , that sir is plagirism Copy six persons writings , that sir is Research copy Fifty and then you have an original article.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'

Does 'innovation' mean 'critical security vulnerabilities'

hmm...

Comments like this are a good thing!

[King_TJ]

When Microsoft gets worked up enough about a technology to start publically attacking it, you know it's got something going for it.

Most of the time, Microsoft pretends competing products simply don't exist, and they ignore them, or they attempt to buy them out and re-brand them as their own.

Like it or hate it, Microsoft is the dominant market force right now, just as IBM once was before MS. Linux presents a threat that companies like Microsoft never had to deal with before. "How do you compete with a freely distributed product that's arguably superior to yours?"

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to attack it with propaganda. Discredit it. Cast doubt and uncertainty, so its potential users are scared away from it.

That's exactly what we're seeing here - and I think it illustrates the foothold that Linux is getting in the marketplace.

HPFS sux0rs

[Anonymous Coward]

NTFS was created because HPFS sucked so badly! For example, it had the ridiculous requirement of having 512-byte sectors, causing it to not work on many drives common in Asia.

Other features NTFS has that HPFS didn't:
* multiple arbitrary streams in a file, allowing ACLs, Mac resource forks, properties, etc. of any size
* Unicode filenames
* 64-bit sizes for files and volumes (there are no doubt NTFS volumes out there which would not be possible under HPFS)
* multiple filenames per file, allowing hard links and DOS 8.3 support
* case-sensitivity
* POSIX compliance
* metadata journaling
* per-file compression/sparse files
* quotas
* volume change log
* expandability, allowing me to add a 250GB drive to an on-line volume and have it be usable almost immediately
* no single point of failure
* arbitrary indices (just used for filenames (i.e. directories), security descriptors, and maybe quota data, I believe)
* mount points

Re:your sig

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com
Linux Spaceflight MMO (Win32 and Mac OS X clients too).

Re:Can't develop on Linux? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that even for experienced programmers, MSDN is probably the best reference on earth. Trolling through online references and man files is hell, compared to highlighting something and pressing f1, and going straight to a page that'll link you to exactly what you need.

Re:Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be MS ExcerciseBike 2003(TM) ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

hmmm, cheesesteak.

[jelle]

Combine that with wine, which is thousands of years old, and you have great meal.

-> Evolution, the sum of many innovations over a long stretch of time.

Wiskey gets better with time, so does port, and many other things. Linux will keep getting better with time. Windows will just change (a.k.a MS Innovate(tm)), only ... time ... will tell if that's for the better or just for the change. Who likes the 'new' candy colours over the good old faithful blue/grey?

Command-Line Only?

[gamgee5273]

"...Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.."

Hunh. I thought M$ stopped using DOS and sold off Xenix...

old doesn't mean bad

[scourfish]

Lots of good things are based off of older software

For example, and I'm not trying to get off topic or anything, the Dragon Warrior Series of video games has kept the same exact gaming style since the 80's. And it currently kicks the ass of every other console RPG. I like to think of Linux in such a way too.

And in other news

[DunbarTheInept]

So, Windows has more innovations than that other community, huh?

...And in other news, he was also heard to say:

• "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
• "Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"
• "they are nowhere near the airport ..they are lost in the desert...they can not read a compass...they are retarded."

I love that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf guy. He's so funny. Oh wait - this is the same guy, right?

Ballmer un-American?

[Baloo Ursidae]

our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community

Anybody else instantly reminded of that Iraqi Minister of Information? Coincidentally, Balmer should probably have warcrimes charges brought against him after he exploded into a greasy, unsightly ball of sweat and started prancing, excited having just learned a new word prior to going on stage.

M$ innovation, HA HA HA.

[Sparcler]

Microsoft innovation what a joke. Microsoft has never created anything, all
they do is copy Apple. Every single M$ product is a cheap ripoff of an Apple
product. The XP ui is just a really bad attempt to copy OSX. Just watch Ballmer
is going to try and claim that M$ e-Movie is an original invention and not
just an attempt to copy i-Movie.

Microsoft doesn't limit themselves to stealing ideas from Apple, no they are
an equal opportunity thief. C# is just their attempt to copy Java. DOS was just
their version of CP/M. Windows NT was just OS/2, NTFS was their copy of HPFS.
Watch they will come up with the idea of a kernel based web server and try to
claim it as an original M$ idea or that they invented Ogg Vorbis.

I dare anyone out there to find anything that is an original M$ idea. You
can't, because M$ has never invented anything

Re:M$ innovation, HA HA HA.

[demon]

NTFS _is_ HPFS. Or was, anyway - that was one of the things that Microsoft took away from the storied OS/2 split. The original NTFS in Windows NT 3.1 literally _was_ HPFS, however - you stuck an HPFS volume in an NT system, booted it, it'd mount up and be readable just like an NTFS volume because IT WAS THE SAME CODE. Recent versions have diverged from HPFS feature-wise, but the first NTFS wasn't just a cheap rip of HPFS - it was the same thing.

Why the fuss over command line?

[Hoser McMoose]

Why is it that everyone seems to think that it's even remotely useful to get rid of the GUI on a modern server? I keep seeing messages talking about Windows is so bad because you have to run a GUI and can't just sit in a command line.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for the comamnd line, in fact I find it quite useful and many tasks can be accomplished faster by using a good command line shell rather than a GUI.

What I'm worried about is that people seem to think that a GUI somehow slows down a modern system. Maybe if you're still running a server on a 486 with 4MB of RAM the GUI would be a big problem, but a modern server these days is WAY more powerful! The GUI only takes up a couple of MB of memory, most of it swapped. The amount of processor cycles a GUI takes up on anything beyond about a Pentium 100 is so minute it's completely negligible. Still though, I keep seeing people on Slashdot complaining about all of the overhead of the GUI.

Loading tons of useless services/applications, sure that will bloat your server, and both Linux and Windows suffer from this very badly in most default configurations (though both can be slimmed down significantly). Extra drivers can slow things down, bad settings can slow things down, but a GUI? That's the least of the problems on most systems.

Re:Why the fuss over command line?

[inertia187]

All the fuss is due to this. Among other things, the GUI of Windows has security flaws acknowledged by Microsoft. This overshadows any of the benefits that could ever be realized. Get rid of it, or replace it with a different, more secure GUI model, and you might have something.

No one wants innovation - OT, but thread gone....

[chrysops]

open source v. MS anyway, so my .02 The end-user is dumb. They either know nothing or use Windows at home. If you are IT, then you want the: a) OS that's most easily accessible by morons b) OS that your end-users will be familiar with

Linux vs. Dotnet

[alext]

Perhaps it's not who is first with an innovation that matters, but who recognises its importance and exploits it?

By all means point out that Dotnet is a clone of Java. The key issue is that MS have now altered their whole OS strategy to embrace it, while Linux is left with a comparatively unintegrated and confused strategy.

One example: an earlier comment boasted that MS would never have a package distribution model to match Linux (presumably a reference to RPM or Debian). Thanks to Dotnet, it now appears that Windows is about to leave Linux far behind in this area.

Re:What about the positives aspects of the intervi

[epukinsk]

I expect that by this time next year the Samba team will be saying "yeah, we got a faster SMB server than the one in Windows 2003

No, you misunderstood what Ballmer said:

we didn't have the fastest one around ... So we took our performance team and said "your mission is to make ours twice as fast as this other one on the market."

At Microsoft, "Performance Team" is another name for "Marketing Statistics and Analysis Group". So when they say "make ours twice as fast as this other one on the market" they mean, "make the graphs highlight the fact that our server is faster than JLAN Sever."

It sure sounds good when Ballmer says it, though!

Erik

Re:Eventually, this would happen

[shatfield]

I had my Apache web servers set up to automatically redirect CodeRed/Nimda attacks to Microsoft's webserver, and auto-send a message to the postmaster at the addresses that were attacking my machines.

I sent 2800+ requests to the afflicted web servers each day for a few weeks before they finally died down.

My point is, just because you were smart enough to patch the IIS security hole doesn't mean that other people were. There are at least 2800 other people that might say "The only virus/worm I've ever gotten was through Windows/IIS". Saying that it was even their fault is talking about the symptom, not the disease.

If Microsoft would be proactive about their security (as the Linux security teams are), maybe they wouldn't have such a terrible reputation for shipping buggy/insecure products. Sending developers to a "security boot camp" for a month certainly isn't going to fix existing security problems... maybe just prevent some easy to spot problems in the future. The problems will still be there, because of Microsoft's "reactive" stance towards bugs and security holes. They need to devote more resources to spotting potential security problems in existing/shipped software.

Re:ya baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

man, I can't help it sometimes...*bite* Um, last I checked, the US wasn't taking over anything. If these wars were about oil, the US could destroy anyone who stood in the way of an American middle east. Yet we do not. As for our young people dying for oil, the total coalition death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq is miniscule - a few hundred at most - even including accidents and natural causes. So, that's not really motivation. Yes civilians will die. People die in wars, even ones they don't start. However, if democracy takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqis of the future have more to look forward to than sandy 3rd world obscurity under the thumb of repressive, violent, and generally psychotic dictators. I hope that you would agree that if a free Iraq, one that can finally reach the potential it's resources allow it, rises out of Saddam's ashes, some civilian casualties will have been a price worth paying. Or is life in a cage for all better than life in a world of opportunity for the rest forever? I also think that no matter the numbers matchup - whether it be budget or manpower - facing an armed person who wants to kill you is brave. As to North Korea. That may have looked like the North Korean army in 1950, but that was Russia. As was the case in Viet Nam to a lesser degree. And like Viet Nam, an enemy that refuses to surrender or halt their agression in the face of slaughter is hard to fight. I'm fuzzy on our kill ratio in N. Korea, but in Viet Nam, estimates of enemy deaths are in the many hundreds of thousands. We lost 50K. As in all of the wars we have fought since WWII, limiting civilian deaths and uneccessary destruction, and limiting the scope of our operations has hampered all out victory. If being scared of an erratic communist dictator with a nuclear weapon makes one a pussy, then I am a pussy. Does the prospect of nuclear proliferation not frighten you? By the by, as you sound as if you are not of the US, may I ask where from it is you hail?

Re:Wait, what does MS innovate??? .NET

[Anonymous Coward]

.NET is the one that Mr. Ballmer probabily would like to point as innovative.

More broken logic...

[Alex Belits]

With stacks of cheap coldswap enclosed, Ghosted Windows image hard drives available, you can run a pretty large Customer Care system with excellent uptime. When someone has a software problem, you go to their computer, cold swap the drive, and when it comes up it just works. You can figure out what virus they got, or what other crap they did to it later. The fact that Linux Netboots are cheaper/better/cooler doen't make it the only solution.

I have no idea how any of the things that you have mentioned are relevant to what I am responding to.

You have already mentioned that a solution that works with Linux exists, and is cheaper. You have mentioned that the "problems" with Linux version are caused by the lack of the support people's skills or experience with it.

Now you are bringing all kinds of "religious" arguments, and giving an imaginary solution to the imaginary problem that is absolutely unrelated to the one (maybe imaginary one, too, maybe not) you have described in the previous message -- it's obvious that if the users can be satisfied with replacement of their drives every time they have problems, they don't need a support person at all, leave alone ten of them.

The fact that your previous hiring needs were based solely on a strong Windows skill set doesn't mean your people are incompetent, any more than hiring mono-lingual people implies that they are all stupid.

"Strong Windows skills" is the same as "strong burger-flipping skills". Especially if the "just replace the hard drive with ghosted image" solution works. What usually does not because people have data, and if all data and settings are on the network, server is likely to be the first victim of any problem, so you need 1-2 skilled (and therefore not windows-only) sysadmins anyway.

So, it would seem to me, the idea that "the" solution is to go on a firing spree to get rid of eight formerly valuable employees because of your personal affinity for the FOSS solutions base, won't win you any awards for good management.

I merely mean that if you base your arguments entirely on your sad accident of having a single person that can handle a solution other than what you have, you have no idea what are you talking about in the first place. You have described a problem, and I have given a solution that saves you installation and maintenance costs that you have described. If you are going to pile up more conditions that suit you, you certainly do not help your credibility. If you replace more people with less, more expensive solution with cheaper and at least as usable (and likely more reliable) one, it would be definitely an example of good management. Clinging to assets that are worth more to maintain than to replace, only because they are percieved as "valuable" is a common mistake.

EROS ...

[opello]

EROS, that's a governmental organization called the Earth Resources Observation System. I actually live near it ... wouldn't the acronym for this "Extremely Reliable Operating System" have to change?

http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/

Re:Can't develop on Linux? WTF?

[gosand]

Our coding projects go 3x faster on Windows than on Mac or Linux. Those are the facts. You can start ignoring them.... now.

Fine. That isn't the argument I was making. To me, that is a VALID argument. I can't say whether it is true or not, it may be true for you. Yipee. Now look at what I wrote, and what my argument really is - you can't get a custom solution from Microsoft. If you are developing your own app, sure it may be faster to develop it for Windows. But if there is a bug *IN* Windows that you can't get around (easily) then you are stuck. Nobody but Microsoft can help you, and they won't.

Communism and Work Democracy

[einhverfr]

One of the most interesting Marxist writers I have ever read is Wilheml Reich. His "Mass Psychology of Fascism" is worth reading by anyone interested in either history of psychology.

Reich contends that Communists (he had formerly been one it should be noted) were fairly delusional regarding the scope of state ownership and control and that this state ownership and control was bound to fail because it was sadly naive. He actually stated that World War II outmoded Soviet-style Communism, and he proceeds to develop an alternative interpretation of the works of Marx. I must confess that his is the only compelling interpretation of Freud and Marx I have ever read.... Reich calls his model "Work Democracy" and advcates a centralized state control over energy and infrastructure, while the factories should be owned by market entities.

Now for open source and communism-- I think that open source fits this idea of work democracy because the means of production (source code) is effectively owned by the community. However market entities can take those resources and develop goods that they can take to market. Marx himself even said that every stage of economic growth leaves a legacy, so it is not unreasonable to assume that a truly Marxian communism would have a market economy and could only develop *from a capitalist society!* In this view the USSR was in fact simply a glorified feudalism. This concept of centralized ownership is better represented by Microsoft than by Linux.

A real MSoft innovation

[silicon not in the v]

>Oh, I'm sure they must have done something "innovative", but whatever it was doesn't seem to be related to their bottom line or have had much of an impact on their products. Oh, but they DID come out with an innovation recently, and it DID relate to their bottom line. They had that little "feature" in Office2000, where the registration ran out after two years and people had to buy another license for software they already bought! Hey, making people pay for software twice--that'll contribute to your bottom line. Check out the article about it on slashdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/17/134420 2&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=128