Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Deploys Linux, Open Software in Test Lab
securitas writes "Microsoft has deployed Linux and other open-source software in test labs used by business customers to experiment with Microsoft's products. The products include Linux, Apache, MySQL and Open LDAP directory-access software on Intel-based computers, according to Martin Taylor, who is in charge of Microsoft's Linux competitive strategy. He said the goal was to learn 'what can you do and how can you do it' using open-source software in a competitive analysis. This step comes after Microsoft's recent admission that Linux is Microsoft's biggest threat after economic conditions. Mirrors at CMPnetAsia and InternetWeek." It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
...that this will be a venue to generate more FUD as well as an attempt to get a competitive edge? Am I just paranoid or what?
Keep your enemy close to you so you can keep your eye(s) on it. A wise move by Microsoft.
Now that they have offically declared OSS as the enemy, it only makes business sence to learn as much as you can.
And since its 'open' that wont be all that hard.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seriously, though, if M$ thought they could profit from Linux they'd be using it in their products already and biting the GPL bullet. Or figuring out a strategy to get the GPL tossed out so they could use other strategies to be able to use the code.
that they did not bother to look at it so far?
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
from the article: 'In an effort to better understand its main source of competition'
IMO The problem with MS is they no longer understand the customer
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
The suggestions that this is an attempt to create FUD seem a bit off the mark to me. I'm sure MS aren't going to be touting the benefits of Linux, but in a closed environment they have far more to gain from honest testing and competition than they do from convincing a very small number of customers, presumably devoted ones, that Linux sucks.
Were they do do that, they'd just end up looking like fools. And while marketing may help in the desktop market, those who spend large amounts of corporate money on enterprise software research it thoroughly. MS won't beat Linux in the server market just by marketing, no matter how much they spend. They know that, and have clearly decided to take Linux seriously as a competitor.
From the article: "The end-to-end scenarios is where things don't work quite as well with Linux"
I would wager that they are going to simply let business customers loose in the environment, and those PHB will try to do the same plug-and-play things they are used to doing: downloading software off the internet, drag-and-drop spreadsheet into word, find servers across a network...
The key here, and what M$ is banking on, is their GUI, and their idiot-level engineering (clippy being the extreme example). No one will go down to a terminal to do their file transfers or configure a network, they will all want to compare GUIs and wizards. Admittedly, M$ has an edge of Linux on this.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that. This is about spin: M$ will spin the comparisons to their advantages (just like anyone would).
davejenkins.com |
This makes a lot of sense for Microsoft. They can pick at Linux all the want since it's OSS and they can also demo. it to their customers. They'll get great information about how Linux works and they'll be able to compare and constrast in their controlled environment to make Windows look good to their key customers. When a company like Microsoft says "Enterprise" on something they are talking about the really serious $$$ here, not a lab for the average Windows user, but a place to invite very senior people in Fortune x00 companies.
And the OSS/FS could do more of the same. It always worries me when OSS/FS advocates say bad things about Windows and then you find out that they never use it. If you don't know your enemy IN DEPTH then you are missing out. I think every OSS/FS developer ought to have access to a copy of Windows.
John.
The main argument is that Windows sysadmins get paid less than Unix/Linux sysadmins. I can almost understand this point, but I've gotten the impression that one *nix admin can handle more computers than one Windows admin can, so that would even out the sysadmin costs. In addition to that, I have a lot of trouble believing that the difference in sysadmin cost is enough to make up for the fact that Linux is infinitely cheaper than MS software. Also, with MS software, some companies have had to hire an extra person to make sure they are in compliance with all the MS license oddities, so that has to add to Windows' TCO.
Seriously, though, if M$ thought they could profit from Linux they'd be using it in their products already and biting the GPL bullet
Actually I disagree. Despite what most people think, Microsoft isn't nessesarily just after money all the time. Why wouldn't MS support Linux? It's a matter of control. MS just has to have control of EVERYTHING and they refuse to let go. Release after release of windows shows that less and less of the system can be manipulated by the user/admin, and typically is purposly obscured to make sure that doesn't happen. Linux, being open as it is; goes directly against MS's phylosophy there. So in short, MS will play a game for money, but only if it's in their own yard.
Besides which, if you know anyone who works there now, they'll happily tell you that it is indeed the policy.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
If anyone from Microsoft is reading this, take this advice to heart:
You would gain an amazing amount of respect that you desperately need if you stopped fighting Linux and made an effort to join the community. Many of my customers are chomping at the bit to dump Microsoft and go Linux on the desktop. The day is coming when that'll be possible. I've already begun the migration with the help of CrossoverOffice.
Inaction on your part is creating a vacuum in the marketplace. Someone will fill it like they always do. Unfortunately for you, this time you won't be able to use your competitive advantage to stop them.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
MS just has to have control of EVERYTHING
Because that's how they get the money.
Why wouldn't MS support Linux? It's a matter of control.
Flashback to 1994 and you could say the same thing about supporting the Internet. But once they realized that they couldn't stop it, they had to get in the game, cheat like bastards, and attempt to "move it to their own yard".
If they do succeed in discouraging OSS coders from coding to fill application requirements of business, then this will not kill Linux but it will surely entrench MS as the only business software you can get. Do they deserve the market share that they have? No. How will they keep the market share? Like they always have by destroying anything they cannot absolutely control. Fortunately Intel has been getting a little pissed at them lately, as have alot of hardware manufacturers. Hopefully the industry will gang up on them and finally kick the shit out of Billy and Co.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
It's MS's worst nightmare that Windows would have GPL-licensed code checked in, as they could conceivably be forced to open-source the whole product.
Well, looks like you got modded up. But you're wrong just the same. The assertion that Microsoft might have to release Windows, Office, or some portion thereof, because a copyright holder, who happened to license under the GPL, claimed -- and proved -- copyright infringement within one of Microsoft's products, would therefor force Microsoft to release some or all of their product line under the GPL, is plain absurd. It would never happen, nor should it.
Suppose SCO is right and within a few files of the Linux kernel it's proven that someone illegally copied a section, or even whole files, from their source tree into the Linux kernel. Does that mean SCO owns all of the kernel, even those parts they didn't write? No. The outcome would be that those parts which were infringing would be excised and then rewritten.
Suppose it turns out that an engineer in Microsoft illegally copied gzip into Windows, and then Microsoft distributed Windows under their proprietary license. The FSF would have cause for a copyright infringement suit, and they would win. But could they demand a judgment that Microsoft release Windows under the GPL as a result? No. The best they could do would be to demand financial damages plus the removal of their code from the Windows source tree.
Suppose Microsoft management distributed gzip withing Windows, even knowing it's licensing terms under the GPL, could the FSF then enforce the redistribution terms license beyond Microsoft paying damages and removing the infringing code under court order? I seriously doubt it. And that's willingly breaking copyright law by corporate officers (which they have done -- see Stacker).
So, the assertion that Microsoft doesn't allow it's engineers to view GPL'd source under the assumption that said source could illegally make it into their product line and then force them to release their product under the GPL is patently ridiculous. It wouldn't work that way, period. This is, of course, speaking as a layman and not a lawyer.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Microsoft and Bill Gates in particular were for many years the primary advocates of user controlled computing, the empowerment from thick clients over the thin client dumb terminal minis and mainframes. Windows for Workgroups is a remarkably liberal product in terms of what it lets people do.
However the PC revolution led to very high support costs and the customers (corporate workers and corporate management) pretty much agreed they wanted resonably priced reliability more then freedom. The lockdown of NT came from this. However in no meaningful sense is an NT box really locked down for a knowledgeable user.
Gates/Microsoft cares more about customer satisfaction than about freedom but I certainly would not argue they are anti freedom in principle.
Lets see... what's new in Panther?
Fast user switching.
XP has it.
Videoconfrencing combined with IM
XP has it.
HTML Email
XP has it.
Encrypting File System
XP has it.
Folder Syncronization
XP has it.
Hmmm.... you might as well call it "Mac OS XP".
How much more time did you spend configuring the linux server over the windows server. Remember, you cost more money then shrinkwrap software.
And about the dev tools: Another post points out that not everyone needs it.
now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05
I really hope MS is planning to use these tests to implement missing features into Windows.
The thing I dislike most about windows is the lack of a decent command line. If Windows had a full command line environment similar to Unix, I'd really love it. And no, cygwin and friends don't cut it. I'd like much more unix compatability than that. Not to mention something more integrated into the OS so that it runs similar to a UNIX as well.
I heard such features are coming. That would be slick.
I can't believe this troll flamebait is modded as "interesting." Such is /.
Be afraid, be very afraid. Building labs like this, and investing in "learning the enemy", is the singular reason why Microsoft wins time and again. Regardless of what you think of their tactics, you have to admit that building a Linux testing lab -- from a "learn the enemy" standpoint -- is a damn good idea.
I'm sure they have had a test lab setup for quite some time now...Have you ever worked for a company and they have NOT bought the competitors product and put it in a restricted area... Our old company used to do that all the time... No one had access to the area, but a select few... Microsoft is doing the same...Yes they will improve there software by copying or at least duplicating the hard work the OSS community has done... They arn't a threat to us people... How many of you WANT all of your users in your office to run Linux? Honestly... at this point in development? It runs GREAT on our machines... Could stay up years if you know how to maintain it right... and WE do... but the average user wouldn't. If Microsoft comes out with some new feature that interests us... Trust me, we will have programmers on it in two seconds to duplicate there new feature and add it into our system. Remember Internet Connection sharing? well we came up with that first... ipfwadm.... The stupid little Start button... well I THINK (don't quote me on this) we took that from them... We definatly took the "control panel idea"... Mix and match... If WE want it bad enough... It will be done... A good example is new hardware... If it only works on windows... and it's crap even while working there... no point in making drivers for it here...but if it's something good... Watch out for a new "so and so driver coming next month"... - Just my 2 cents... but you'll have to give the 2 cents back if you will, I'm kinda on social assistance.
Be careful what you wish for.. The last case of a competitor contributing to Linux isn't going very well.
You would probably be surprised at how much testing actually happens at Microsoft.
:-(
I AM surprised, that with all this testing, so many ugly bugs get through. Your list of QA is long and nice, sure, then how come there is so many big ugly bugs in MS products? Especially security-related bugs
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
It would shock and amaze me, for all the energy Microsoft has put into Linux FUD, if they DIDN'T have a secret test lab somewhere with a Windows compatible desktop for X, a Linux Active Directory integration module, and ports of MS Office and all of their other software underway. It makes sense for them to speculate in secret about what they would do if they needed to shift their market focus.
Doesn't anyone else find it a little bit bizarre that MS has submitted the specs for their next-generation platform technology to ECMA for certification as a standard?
Nobody finds that to be weird?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
r figuring out a strategy to get the GPL tossed out so they could use other strategies to be able to use the code.
hmmm, I wonder what this whole SCO ordeal is?
Yes. That is my worry. First, by drawing legal parallels (not neccessarily common-sense parallels, you understand) between the viral licensing nature of SCO's UNIX (all your derivitive works are belong to us) and the GPL and then by having a massive court battle where IBM ruthlessly smashes SCO and sets precendents...
The danger? Should SCO succeed in drawing the correct parallels and loosing the case in the right way, the variety of viral licensing and viral copyrights that are important to open-source may be legally nullified. Kaboom! The GPL is smashed like so many rotten eggs...
Spread this meme - it is important to get this dangerous scenario into the minds of the people who can do something about it.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving