Slashdot Mirror
What's Microsoft Up To?
So, today's one of those days when every bit of news is dominated by Microsoft. To spare you six different stories about the Borg, we'll assimilate them all into this one. You have seen the stupid Passport hole in an earlier story; also the iLoo, although that hasn't stopped you from submitting stories about it, oh no. New news: a report paid for by Microsoft shows that Windows is a better server than Red Hat. A class-action suit has been filed charging that MSN and Best Buy combined to scam customers. The WINHEC conference is ongoing - Steve Ballmer says DRM is an opportunity, not a prison, the Xbox is going to be your home communications center, Wired talks about how hardware will be changed to imprison users, and once you're locked in to Microsoft you get to pay more each year. An article describes why user desktops are locked down. Oh, and here's another on DRM, just because.
Is Slashdot running out of news?
I dont think "there has been lots of news about MS in Slashdot" counts as news.
6 months ago everything you heard from MS was about tablet PC's and how they were going revolutionize everyone's computing experience. Maybe MS figured out that not everyone wants to use a stylus with their computer or has a need to work standing up? I wouldn't mind having stylus functionality on my ultraportable laptop screen but the idea that tablets are going to create a whole new mainstream sector of computing is far fetched.
Hmm... let me see if I can make this argument valid...
:P
Cost:
Windows: Expensive (especially if you count licenses)
RedHat: You either pay or don't (download). It's Linux.
Support:
Windows: Support costs you hell a lot of money
RedHat: If you can't afford to pay RedHat, it's Linux for God's sake. There're thousands of people on the net willing to help you.
Documentation:
Windows: None
RedHat: It's Linux, damn it. RTFM
Source code:
Windows: None
RedHat: It's Linux. You get the source code.
Patches:
Windows: Waiting for patches if Microsoft has the time and mood to fix it. Service packs come out once in a blue moon.
RedHat: It's Linux. Thousands of people have access to the source code. Bug fixes come out rapidly.
Hmm.... Windows is better than RedHat?
...they're running SAMBA. For balance I think they should test Windows 2003 throughput of NFS.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
Microsoft pays for a test that shows that Windows 2003 is twice as fast. That's nice. But not very productive.
I see nothing in the report that they had a Red Hat guru optimize the Red Hat server. It is easy to get the results you want. If I don't see proof that Red Hat was configured by a Red Hat guru, as I am sure that Windows 2003 was optimized by a Microsoft guru, then the tests are bunk.
-Brent
Because the test was commissioned and paid for by Microsoft. They knew the results before they paid for the test - the test was ordered in such a way as to make the results a forgone conclusion.
If you were going to contruct a biased test of Linux vs. Microsoft, wanting Linux to prove better - you'd choose products and tests that would favor Linux... just as Microsoft did here. Take a native protocol to Microsoft and stack it up against a re-implementation on another operating system... sounds pretty weighted against Linux to me.
Of course there are lots of ways to make an unbiased performance comparison - such as using multiple protocols, etc... but why would Microsoft pay for that? I'm not saying that either system was better or worse than the other - just that this particular test doesn't prove anything except that Microsoft know how to spec a test so that their products appear faster.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
...With regard to IT's (real!) need to lock down desktops...
We need a new definition of OS stability.
Today, "stability" basically refers to the ability of an OS to run without crashing _in the absense of configuration changes_.
In the real world, there are ongoing needs to install new software, apply patches, updates, etc.
In a system that had proper modular design, it should be possible to install something new or change a legitimate setting without feeling that you're playing Russian Roulette.
CERTAINLY it should be possible to install vendor-recommended updates with a high level of confidence that it's not going to break something.
Remember all that stuff a few years back, that implied that the problem with stability was that people weren't keeping their systems properly updated and that "self-healing" systems would fix that? Well, now, we all but have them, and, in fact, it's made things worse.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Its so horrible to see a company like this doing dirty business everywhere, getting sued like mad, and yet, their stock is UP!!!!!
But no, this company is not a monopoly at all.
Get paid to code OSS
From what they say in the wired article I can see DRM being extremely dangerous. If you can sign an email, making it only viewable by the intended recipient and stopping them from print/forwarding/saving, then you could very easily mount a campaign of e-stalking, sendingv vulgar and/or threatening emails and the person receiving them unable to remove them or forward them to anybody who can help.
I used to work for Best Buy. We were given the whole deal about getting out as many MSN disks as we could. The thing about that is, MSN kicks back a good amount of money for each free account that someone signs up for. Whether or not it's the 30 free days, 2 months, or 9months (or whatever). Heres what happens. Say a customer buys a computer at Best Buy, they automatically get 6 free months (if they pay with a credit card or major debit). If the customer doesn't sign on and activate that account, they never get billed. However, even if they sign on just once, even for just 30 seconds, they have to call and cancel the account.
Now, if a customer signs up for the 30 day free trial, yes they have to give a creditcard number, but they have to call and cancel the account even if they don't sign on. I had that problem but I called MSN and got this resolved and my money refunded immediately.
Now, the problem is that some bestbuy clerks don't bother to tell the customers this. I've had customers outright refuse the msn and i said that's fine and just don't go through with ringing it up. I always mentioned it to all the customers I talked to, and if they just didn't want it, I never scanned it. This class action probably won't work, but I hope this guy gets his money back.
Anyway that's my piece!
It's already been put out there that Microsoft wants a piece of the search engine pie. Their current MSN search is horrible, and Google is far superior. Is it competition for Google? Maybe. And I welcome it. Google's done some amazing things with their search engine, and I'd love to see what they can do with a hefty bit of competition. Because right now they really have none. If Microsoft can build a better search engine then let them try.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
[Just to be clear, this is the Wired article talking aobut Longhorn]
"This is scary stuff," said a developer who asked that his name be withheld. "I could see a lot of people sticking with their old computers, operating systems and media players to avoid all this permission crap. Any geek who does use Windows is going to stick with Windows 2000; most of them are already not thrilled with XP anyway."
Mmm hmm...yea. The same thing was said about Internet Explorer 4.0 & Windows 98 (just substitute the words "web browser integration" in for "permission", and it should bring back memories). No one was going to upgrade because no one wanted their internet integrated into the operating system. But whoever was saying such a thing didn't think about this key issue:
The average joe does not care, let alone know about integrating a web browser into an OS. It doesn't matter if the nerd police showed up on the opening day of Windows 98 to tell people how evil it was.
Joe wants a new computer with all the new bells and whistles. If Longhorn says that "it will make the internet come alive with all sorts of new technologies...all you need is Longhorn", then so be it, Joe's going to get Longhorn, because the internet is "cool".
What's more pathetic? An obviously overworked Slashdot editor with a chip on his shoulder or a bunch of malcontents who can't take a joke? The Bord-implanted Bill Gates has been the Microsoft icon for years...to call Microsoft the Borg and crack an assimilation joke seems logical enough.
You position, assuming that he's attacking Microsoft and that therefore he's making Linux users look bad, speaks of the worst sort of arrogance. The articles have not been misrepresented. When he says "although that hasn't stopped you from submitting stories about it, oh no," that strikes me as a jab at all those who grumble about dupes. Sure, an editor posted it, but someone submitted it in the first place. That someone probably has more time to check for a dupe than the editor. Personally, I always do.
I see references to Seth Finkelstein appearing already. With any Michael thread this is no surprise. I don't know who was right or who was wrong, but I do know that it has no bearing on Digital Rights Management. It's a private spat, let it stay that way. Taco clearly feels confident in Michael Sims and frankly, it's Taco's call.
Finally, I'd mod you down too. Why? Because I've seen this rant far to often. It's the ultimate meta-dupe, and a troll to boot. Given the responses you've provoked, I'd say it's a fair bet to call it flamebait. Finally, you've added nothing useful to the discussion. If your post were exorcised from the site nothing would have been lost.
If you don't like what the editors do, vote with your browser and go somewhere else. You aren't locked in to Slashdot. I'm sure Kuro5hin would welcome another Slashdot hater...
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
Most of the comments that I read from the actual hackers state quite clearly that they could care less what Microsoft is doing and what percentage market share that Linux has. Honestly who other than the whiners and posters give a damn about controlling the desktop?
The hackers write code because they enjoy it. The main reason Linux exists is not to compete with MS.
People need to stop treating or acting like this is some grand competition between Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds. There is no war. Microsoft might be trying to compete with Linux but Linux for the most part could care less. The hackers are still going to write code even if Microsoft has 99% of the desktop or if they have 2%.
Saying things like MS has whooped Linux's butt on the desktop is arguably one of the most childish things I have seen in a while. Who decides what is best on the deskop? You, me, some media outlet? The answer is all of the above. Linux works better for me on the desktop that Windows by a long shot. But do I go around screaming that Linux is beating MS on the desktop? Of course not. A. it is all subjective, and B. who cares? Use what works for you. If Linux works for you great, if not, use something else. But why treat it as a competition?
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
In times past, Linux (or *BSD) plus Samba has outperformed MS-Windows on the same hardware. This is quite important, and the reason this test was commissioned.
Secondly, note that no real test results were provided; the report merely states that MS-Windows provided a higher *peak* throughput. Please realize that real-world performance does not rely on peak throughput as much as it relies on aggregate *sustained* throughput.
It could be that Samba still knocks the socks off MS-Windows in that more-important category. But, until some legitimate benchmarks are run, Microsoft will continue to pay for FUD.
BTW: several quibbles with testing methodology. First, no optimisations were done to the Linux box (no noatime option on the filesystem mount, for instance). Second, they didn't test against an optimized kernel (which is fair, I guess, as most people will stick with a stock install; however, most people won't do those MS-Windows tweaks, either). Finally, this was tested against an aging 2.4 kernel, and not against either the newer 2.4 kernel, or against any of the later 2.5 builds. With the SMP, low-latency, and I/O buffs in the new 2.5 series, I imagine the outcome would be quite different.
But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Dig around a bit. Taco has often stated that they maintain complete editorial separation from OSDN's marketing. That is to say, Marketing doesn't dictate the flavor of their articles and they don't dictate who can advertise (that also explaines the "Slashdot Cruiser" marketing flop). No wonder Slashdot serves up the occasional Doubleclick banner or Microsoft ad.
Along those lines, I don't see how accepting funding from Microsoft while criticizing them is hypocrisy. Now - if they're critical on some aspect and then change their tune because of ad funding, then you might have something.
The sad truth is that Slashbork would be exactly nowhere without Microsoft.
No, you're not even close. /. would be a quirky online news site where there would be holy wars about trivial topics (Linux vs BSD vs UNIX) and other things.
MS has only caused a vast majority of those quirky people to come together in jihad against a company whose business ethics are non-existant and whose products are of dubious quality. Although they have a STELLAR marketing group.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
The Samba team got a hold of this about a week ago. These benchmarks are a little off.
For instance, they're comparing Win2k3 vs. Samba 2.2.7. We're rather close to the 3.0 release of Samba and the 2.2 base hasn't really been worked on in a long time.
Moreover, RHAS is actually slightly older than RH8.0 (a lot older than RH9.0). That's why the one benchmark with all three systems showed RH8 beating RHAS. I believe that RHAS didn't ship the O(1) scheduler.
I've also heard claims that the real reason behind the difference in throughput was the poor software raid used in the benchmark machines. Had a supported hardware RAID been used, things would have been pretty different.
Not to mention the "tuning" done to the two systems. The socket buffers were tweaked and the file descriptors increased on the linux side while a bunch of strange registry options were set on the Windows side. There could have been a lot more tuning done on the linux side to improve performance.
Of course, what would you expect from a study commissioned by Microsoft. What someone should do is let the Samba team set up a machine and some Microsoft folks set up another machine. Then we'll see who outperforms who.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));