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.
Is a Microsoft flavor of Linux coming? It could be this week's sign of the Apocalypse.
www.freshlymixed.com
...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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unless I'm /that/ tired, it looks like the post is talking about MS deploying Linux patches.
If that happened and (as one would assume) the source were available, would anyone still trust it?
I'm not sure if I'd want to run MS code on my Linux box.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
Keep your enemy close to you so you can keep your eye(s) on it. A wise move by Microsoft.
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.
You can find the new revised feature set for Longhorn here.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Maybe now they will realize how much better everything else is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
MS Linux
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
You'd think, with SFU, NFS, etc, that it wouldn't be big news when you hear that Microsoft has Linux installed on campus, especially when doing Inter-Operability testing.
A Nony Mouse
lol so now they "officially" use a version of nix for their servers haha. The days of having their web servers say they are iis are numbered.
Dollars to donuts the primary purpose is nit pick every problem that occurs in a mixed OSS / microsoft environment and then turn them into talking points for sales people.
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 ----
that they did not bother to look at it so far?
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Isn't that one thing that gets them in anti-trust trouble?
You're being optimistic. 386 is my guess. Or even more dastardly, running it on a 286 and claim that Linux and its apps break on Intel hardware.
Jack
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
...is the bit in the referenced article where Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer is claiming that not only does Windows have a lower TCO than Linux, but MS is faster at patching bugs than the OSS/FS community...
If it weren't such a sobering reality that many businesspeople actually believe such BS, it would be funny...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
They're doing this is to see what they can do to tide the swelling of the tide which is to befall MS.
.sig 'cept to be a troll
I have no
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
"It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond", but that's probably wishful thinking.
I'm sure MS will release patches to make sure XP works "really good" with Linux.
Deuteronomy 13:06-9
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The move is the latest in Microsoft's attempt to demonstrate that Windows has both technical and cost advantages over Linux.
and
CEO Steve Ballmer argued that Windows' total cost of ownership is lower than Linux's
What, does Microsoft PAY ME now to run their OS???? I want my check!
----
Squirrel
Once I read that, I felt a sudden compulsion to bathe...
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Remember when Linus said that there is no way Microsoft can fix their bugs; its such a nightmare of bugs that depend upon other bugs to function, that fixing one would break tons of other features... And you want Microsoft to contribute code?
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Sun Tzu has learned them well. Know your enemy, and you will know the way to victory!
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
It's actually being emulated within Windows XP... that way engineers are exposed to a "regular" rate of crashing and don't get too suspicious.
The last thing Microsoft wants is for its engineers to switch over themselves.
Um...SCO...since MS has shown great respect for intellectual property before by licensing some of your "IP" -- I suggest you quickly come up with pricing for your Linux licensing scheme 'cause this sucker seems to be paying like a slot machine gone mad.
If RIAA finds some mp3s at SCO, they can sue SCO. Then, if M$ sues RIAA, the cirlce will be complete. Can't think of reasons for it though...
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
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 $$$ here, not a lab for the average Windows user, but a place to invite very senior people in Fortune x00 companies.
And the OSS/FS could do more of the same. It always worries me when OSS/FS advocates say bad things about Windows and then you find out that they never use it. If you don't know your enemy IN DEPTH then you are missing out. I think every OSS/FS developer ought to have access to a copy of Windows.
John.
from the article: "The move is the latest in Microsoft's attempt to demonstrate that Windows has both technical and cost advantages over Linux, which has been gaining share in the server market at Microsoft's expense."
Windows has an cost advantage? Last time I checked Windows cost $$$$ and linux is free. In order to demonstrate a cost advantage, Microsoft will need to make Windows free.
Hell has frozen over, film at 11.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Sorry for any MS bashing later in this post, but thier marketing department is asking for it.
First off, lets talk hardware. I'm assuming here that both sets of hardware are going to be identical and normalized. By that I mean no paladium test beds, or winmodems, or other odd hw pieces that would skew things in one direction or another. Just some off the shelf dell's would be good. This is the easy part.
Next, on to the software. We have a company that doesn't know much about linux (I do mean as a company. I'm sure there are some very smart folks up there that know what they are doing. Its just in MS's best interests not to have them around the linux machines.) setting up a linux system. Heck, this sounds like it is just slightly more shady than an "independant testing" lab doing the comparision.
Now, software tuning. Somehow I doubt that the win2k installs are going to be stock. They will tune everything to get every last cycle they can out of it. Now, I wonder if they will do the same in the linux boxen? Heck, I'd put money on them actually slowing down thier benchmarks for thier tuning efforts.
The only set of benchmarks/comparisons I'd respect is a side by side setup. One side has MS's lackies fiddiling with thier server to tune the heck out of it. The other side would have the folks from MySQL*, Apache, RedHat*, and probably ESR for good luck. Then some independant testing machine connected to both doing the same task. (i.e. an actual demo transaction). Why hasn't anyone done something like that?
And tell ESR that hacking the Windows machine before they had a chance to patch it is no fair.
[*] Please substitute your favorite software package if you feel the need to do so.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
diff -urN ms-linux/CREDITS linux/CREDITS
/*
--- ms-linux/CREDITS Wed Jul 31 17:39:29 2001
+++ linux/CREDITS Wed Jul 31 17:41:45 2001
@@ -973,8 +973,8 @@
-ALL YOUR BASE
+BELONGS TO US
*/
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I know this is no big secret, but...
I have heard from MS employees, while talking to them in person, that MS uses Linux internally in certain places. One person stated that his first account there was on a Linux box. Apparently they also use Perl too. (Any MS employees care to comment? Even as AC?)
Which makes this story that much funnier.
http://elks.sourceforge.net/
Litigious bastards
Through SCO
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
With M$ realizing that they have competition, they will strive to improve their products (with how much success?). If they actually do improve their wares, the Linux community will ralley to improve the software in Linux.
Everybody wins.
Linux is coming and nobody can stop it from getting here. It looks as if even Microsoft is willing to acknowledge this.
Maybe now I can finally convince my rabid pro-MS/anti-open-source boss to see this. They're the ones that actually buy the technology. The fact that microsoft is seriously looking at Linux as competition may show him that it's something to look into...
www.lindows.com
.sig not included
BTW, my work was investigating Linux desktop environments to see what the state of the art was. Lots of the devs monkeyed around with Linux, but everyone was very hardcore about not touching the sources.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
does anyone have any of the root passwords yet? Seriously, I think the possibility of MS de-securifying a Linux box by accident is nonzero. HIGH nonzero.
You are not the customer.
And I'd be happy to get patches from them, especially since they'd be open-source, and reviewable. If they were helpful, of course they would be accepted under the GPL.
If you look at early white papers from Microsoft, it becomes obvious that some very intelligent people worked there at one time. Surely some of them are still there, as well as fresh talent. Many people I know "sold out" to Microsoft in college, but were actually experienced Linux hackers.
Software bloat (happens to everyone), company overhead (impossible to avoid in a company the size of MS), and economical agendas driving poor design decisions have all made MS' codebase an unsightly beast, I'm sure. But to think they are incapable of creating working, useable, and even secure code is preposterous. Some of the most talented programmers in the world work for MS.
However, I'm fairly sure that very little help will be given to GNU/Linux from MS, whether by the company as a whole, or specific employees. MS would consider it a waste of time, and dangerously helpful to a competitor. The only reason I could see them doing this is to convince a court they weren't "anti-competetive." Judging by the overly-lenient rulings as of late, however, I doubt they need to do so.
-Dan
Surely Microsoft has already done extensive studies with Linux involving actual usage and deployment before? If not, this is long, long overdue.
I find it pretty unlikely though that this is the first time Microsoft has conducted a serious investigation into Linux's capabilities by actually using it. It's known at least that some people at Microsoft have used it significantly and reported on its performance; there were the leaked "Halloween" documents which gave glowing praise of Linux, and there was the report from Hotmail on migrating their servers from *BSD to Windows (after Hotmail was acquired by MS) in which the author detailed the flexibility offered by *BSD that also happens to exist in Linux.
Bill Gates claimed Microsoft is better at fixing software problems quickly than the open-source community.
And that's why some exploits found in IE in Windows XP are ALSO vulnerable in Windows 95.... and why it takes so long to put patches out... faster my foot.
I really don't understand how anyone can take MS seriously anymore...
;)
"We think Linux is worthless. Its the bane of the IT industry and will end the world in a horrible and tragic way... oh... and its also our biggest threat and competition."
Uh... WTF? Something that horrible and worthless is your biggest threat?? Just ignore it. I am sure it will just just go away.
-K.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Seems to me that deploying Linux in test labs used by business customers to evaluate Microsoft produsts is perhaps the smartest thing Microsoft has done in a while. When customers compare a poorly configured/optimized linux enviroment to a perfectly configured Microsoft enviroment, Microsoft would almost certainly win. If sales reps were to invite potential customers to such a lab, those customers would leave with the belief that they had tested Windows vs. Linux themselves in a fair evaluation, since they conducted it themselves. This of course would be a complete falacy, since the Linux side of the lab would have been configured by staff which were seeking to convince users to avoid Linux. This seems like a great Microsoft Marketing Strategy.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
OK folks, seriously, let me ask you a question:
Will MS ever come out with the answer 'linux is better'?
The answer is no. We all know that.
Quote: "It's an opportunity for learning for us," Taylor says. The goal is to understand "what can you do and how can you do it" using open-source software, he says.
Maybe this is true, but how about this:
Expect Taylor, a 10-year Microsoft veteran who's been in his new job for just three weeks, to play up the advantages of Microsoft's integrated product line. "The end-to-end scenarios is where things don't work quite as well with Linux," he says.
Let's see... 10 years of MS/Windows and 3 weeks of Linux; I wonder which one of these he has more ease of use with? Golly jesus, could it be Win32?
This story isn't even newsworthy. Nobody is going to come out of the blue and say "hey, look, linux is better" as long as they're on a MS payroll.
This is the same as having the Butcher/Meat industry inspect their own factories instead of PETA: Of course they won't find anything wrong.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
here is the linux computer
and here is the windows one
And the winner is......
the linux computer, since it didn't crash.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Get 2 Pentium III 450MHz with 768MB of RAM .Net Framework - JSP in Tomcat
.Net developer tools (you need to be able to program that server) are around 1200 + 800 + 1200 + 900 for a total of $4100 (approx). Not too expensive but not free either.
Install like software:
Windows 2000 Server - RedHat Linux 7.3
IIS 5.0 - Apache/Tomcat 4.1
Sql Server 2000 - MySQL Or Postgres Or oracle 8i
Exchange Server 2000 - QMail
Which perform better under a low, medium and heavy load? That is an excellent test because it takes the hardware out of the equation and does a real stress test on the OS & applications.
I did this and believe me it is like night and day. The linux server ran without a hitch. The windows server was painfully slow. I guess being able to run all your apps without a gui is an advantage. Hell ssh versus terminal services is no contest. If you need a gui just tunnel vnc through ssh.
Oh did I mention the cost for the software?
Windows 2003 Server, Exchange 2000, SQL 2000,
Plus the added bonus of checking technet for patches twice daily.
Actually OSS/FS developer do test windows against open source..
but if only see the myths of MS windows or OPensource in your eye glasses wil you ever be able to see it?
What I mean is the examination should be an open proces snto closed as MS is doing..closed behind the scenes systems produce closed minded assumptions that...
ASS U Make Per Thesis In Only Nam
Don't Tread on OpenSource
No really, they've been using the GPL'd Fnord! webserver for years now, I believe. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/25/123223 6
I was called by one of their recruiters a year ago (I think). They were setting up a linux engineering group in some secret basement somewhere.
Isn't anybody else concerned that MS might have its technicians trying to find exploits in Linux round the clock, and whenever there's one to be found, they code a workable exploit script/program and release it for the kiddies?
That way, they could make a nifty point at how Linux is less secure. Over time, this could become really annoying.
Of course, I'm assuming that they have the competence to find exploits in other people's software and not in their own. But this is MS, so it wouldn't be surprising to have more R&D money flowing to "Linux Exploit Dept" than to "Windows Security Dept".
Oh well. Tinfoil hat is getting hot now. Must be them again!
What better way to ensure total non-compatability than running the other guys gear in house and tweaking your protocol appropriately.
I guess we can understand why they got their SCO ducks in a row before deploying Linux though. They are safe from any SCO damage, and they can now use it for their FUD-machine "Before we could safely install this "Free" OS, we had to mitigate the risk of prosecution, since, unlike US, no Linux vendor indemnifies their clients...blah...blah".
I like music
They must be using MS Linux.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
Ok...
Serious question. How are we going to know that they just didn't say "Shit..this is good code" & stick it into a closed, propietary environment?
with no way to enforce GPL or copyright
and if you don't think that could happen...why I have some wonderful bridges that I could sell you for 10 cents on the dollar
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
..join them. Seriously, it would be in the best interest of MS to adopt *nix and spin there own flavor to the market. Hell, if they do it right I would pay for a copy.
Life is not for the lazy.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win"
Let's hope that's the case here too. Hey, he could beat the UK, MS can't be that much harder... right?
I don't think it'd be too cool to see the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" patches that Redmond would come up with. :-)
<wishful thinking>
Hey Microsoft! I'd like an Active Directory connector for Linux that makes my Linux machines act like domain member servers. I'd like Linux to replicate its user lists from my DCs.
Think you could work on that for me? Thanks.
-ted
</wishful thinking>
Of course M$ is going to 'see what they can do and how they can do it' - extend and embrace linux standards so their OS won't inter-operate, even less than it does now.
Bravo! Mark another one up on the ledger board for the boys from Redmond...they really know how to make the world a better place.
Greed does not equal innovation, as much as Balmer and Gates would have you believe.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I agree. I think this is pretty cut and dry.
Microsoft can't beat Linux TCO.
Microsoft isn't (thus far) willing to lower prices below those of commercial distros (at least to the last writeup I read 1-2 months ago).
Microsoft hasn't had much luck with direct FUD; much of it has backfired.
Microsoft may have success with indirect FUD or legal means, but...
Microsoft is final realizing that if they're not smart and quick on their feet, Linux could really eat into their chunk of the pie graph. If they don't nip this in the bud NOW, they may never completely get rid of Linux in the corporate market. They may be forced to share that big, fat, juicy pie for a long time to come. Notice all the security patches compared to in the past. Notice the new stability. Notice their more realistic attitude towards Linux.
Linux is forcing Microsoft to compete. It's as simple as that.
That said, they're a company out for one thing and one thing alone: money. They're just being strongarmed into being a little more honest. For this reason, and because Microsoft will never give me as much choice as Linux, I'm sticking with the penguin.
It's also interesting to note that this drive for money is conflicting in many areas with their need to compete. They've been considering charging for major patches for a while now... and their patching efforts are already quite wanting. Their greed (How much is office again? What popular new features does it have from 4 years ago? Is it worth that much?) is conflicting with their survival.
~Dalcius
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Since atleast October 6, 2002.
another example (a linux router for a day??)
a little freebsd in the mix
Gee... Could this be Microsofts attempt to find every little bug they can so that they can start an FUD campaign about how buggy opensource software is?
I fear any sort of "Patch" micro$oft would try to give to any open source product. I have this dreadful feeling that it may be a cancerous patch.
Just think "You're now starting Microsoft(TM) Linux, with NT Technology!!" Or a Patch that completely screws up your kernel, oh yeah, I really want Uncle Bill patching my OSS.
900cc of Raw Whining Power, No Outstanding Warrants for my Arrest, Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee, Goddamn, The Pirate's Life for Me
"Microsoft Drops Pants, Inserts Dildo in Butt."
Kinda takin it up the arse, aren't they?
I got nothin'.
Uh, afraid it can. There *IS* a distro for 8088..
http://elks.sourceforge.net/introduction.html
"Next, Microsoft plans to create a comparable system using Windows and its own server products to see how Windows and Linux match up side-by-side in a variety of workload scenarios." from what i can tell, microsoft is setting up a few linux servers and putting one of its own employees, a 10 year microsoft verteran with probably no experiance in linux, in charge of configuring the software, and having another microsoft employee set up window servers... of course they are going to say it will cost more for a company to deploy linux! they are going to say that it takes longer to set up... of course it does when you have an idiot setting things up! ah... i feel much better..
the statements made about microsofts marketing advantages were more realistic in this article (as opposed to the majority of press releases m$ has made)...where they said microsofts advantage is end to end integration. True, very true...that's exactly where you're market is, so glad you're competing on actual unique selling points rather than FUD...maybe m$ corporate culture is changing?
When I worked for the evil empire, I was amazed at how many Linux/*nix/*BSD machines they had on the network, either from users running it or for testing in the lab.
Because I supported the desktops for call center people, I didn't have direct access to the ITG (Information Technology Group) management software. So instead, I found an old DEC dual p200, installed Linux on it, set up Nagios and started monitoring the ITG servers. I could call ITG to alert them of a DHCP server not assigning addresses before they could. And this happened a lot actually.
The most shocking thing about working at Microsoft during the Code Red, and Nimda outbreak, was finding out how much Microsoft eats their own dogfood. And they really do, even if that means putting untested servers into a production enviroment. The Nimda outbreak literally brought the whole corporate network to it's knees. Even the phone systems were down.
But Microsoft running Linux? Old news, in fact I think the Linux machine I made and placed under my desk in my office, is probably still monitoring the network better than the Microsoft software they used. Probably has better uptime too.
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
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*
Knowing Microsoft and their best interests, this is merely an exercise to find any possible weaknesses of Linux and open software they could then authoritatively use on paper. Microsoft probably has another lab where they really compare Linux with Windows, and paste good code over.
But look at the situation in a positive light. Who better to criticize the weaker points of Linux than Microsoft?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
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
No, not Darwin...
In the next few years, prepare for - Microsoft Hurd!!
And you were wondering why the nextgen OS was codenamed "Longhorn"....
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's only one true Longhorn.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tell that to my Pentium 4 system that ran Windows 2000 Pro from the day it was released until the day I got Windows XP. Rarely crashed. And I even play games on 2000. No probs.
So, what happened when I installed Windows XP (clean install! not upgrade!!). The filesystem mysteriously self destructed about 2 weeks later. The system wouldn't boot. Couldn't repair it in the recovery console. FSCK! Went back to Windows 2000 Pro... the system has been happy ever since.
Coming Fall of 2092.
Karma whorin' since 1999
They're not afraid they'll lose their source for their entire product line. They ARE however afraid that they will lose the source for a single product.
Your interpretation of the GPL also differs quite a bit from the way most people here interpret it. The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions." Since nobody has taken it to court yet, nobody knows if it can be enforced that strictly -- and likely, as you suggest, nobody would force MS to release the source code for, say, Office.
However the risk IS there, and they'd be incredibly stupid if they did have a policy that allowed a single employee to open MS up to that kind of damage.
When you write and distribute a problem using, MFC, MSXML, DirectX, or any of the other libraries they produce you don't lose control of your source code.
The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions."
Copyright law is a civil matter, and the GPL is a contract which limits duplication rights within copyright law, as such it's a contract dispute and a civil case. The worst that can happen is a financial judgement, that is Microsoft would have to pay some kind of penalty for illegal copyright infrigement. The judgement couldn't be any worse than what might happen to someone who illegally mass produced illegal copies of Windows and then sold them on the open market. A judge might enact a stiff financial penalty against Microsoft, which one might consider is representative of the value of Windows (whatever that means), but the judge could not force Microsoft to release their source after Microsoft agreed to remove any infringing GPL'd components. Again, IANAL - but I doubt one would disagree. --M
I too have problems with WinXP, although I do hate it, I have to admit that is is much more rock solid OS than anything MS POS before it.
But as much of a goober than I am for running lowly Redhat, I have had some extremely impressive uptimes.
22:20:48 up 17 days, 2:04, 5 users, load average: 0.37, 0.25, 0.14 is my latest, but I have another machine which should is pushing 50+ days already, just haven't ran cat5 to it since I moved in
For me, the record to beat was set by AIX 4.3.3 at 243 days.
As for MS running linux, the engineers are probably going to be totally confused when they can't find a registry
Place something witty here
Next time Windows gets hit with a big virus/worm I wonder if they'll notice that the Linux machines dont catch it :)
Q.
Insert Signature Here
This may fuel FUD which is harder to analyze, but it is more likely to help them create demos which show easier use or better feature set than a comparable linux application. Possibly this was in response to big customers saying "show me where you are better and I'll think about it".
This visibility is most likely on purpose though in addition to being aimed at big customers. But I would also be worried considering that if it is true they have this deal with the NSA then most of the backdoors they added for them have been biting the dust recently. Beware of Microsoft issuing binary-only patches or tools to be run on linux boxes. In fact I'd be very paranoid of even GPL'd source code coming from them as it is plenty possible it could contain something subtle though I would expect it to be jumped on by white hats faster than you can say T R O J A N.
They will probably put Red Hat 6.0 with "everything" installed. Hey, even an M$ tech can figure that one out, right?
All kidding asside, this lab is getting set up because they were tired of how lame their lies were. It was so obvious their FUDsters have no clue. They can't even hire a PR firm to lie for them as is.
Check out the quality of the FUD from just a few articles back in Computerworld The poor meat head tell about chasing down M$ worms and finding "rogue" computers running Linux. Though he's forced to run all over the place by Windoze poor remote administration tools, he worries about the security of boxes he did not know about because they never had a problem. He worries about the security of "third-party" applications like " file transfer protocol, sendmail and Apache. And other open-source software ..." Total cluelessness. They don't know what they are talking about, so they can't lie about it. It's as simple as that.
Their biggest problem is going to be finding people with both the comptence to run their lab and the the ability to lie enough to please meat heads like Steve Balmer. The truth, "dude, this is kicking our ass." is something they already know and don't want to hear. I can just hear Mr. Baller, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, tell me something bad about it, bitch or you are out of here!" Yeah, everything I read about life at M$ is like that, they call such abuse "elite". It must take a really wierd combination of high intelegence, low self esteem, big ego, bad morals, and greed to put up with that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wow, somebody actually did pay SCO to license and use Linux!
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
HAHAHA... jeez, what are you doing with your boxes?!
I have a Red Hat 6.2 box that's happily chugging away, currently at day 276.
An older box (now decommissioned) running TurboLinux, quite possibly the shittiest Linux distribution in existence, still managed to have a uptime record of 340 days (the machines got shut down over the New Year period).
Try making an OS without having SOME similar features to Windows, or some other existing system for that matter. The truth is, sometimes, users want stability. As bad as it is, the Windows UI is a de facto standard, and so is, to a lesser extent, that of Mac OS.
If you want people to convert to Linux or BSD, don't give them cryptic software that will take them lots of time to retrain on, like VIM/LaTeX/TeX, and give them a familliar interface that they already know how to use, like that of OpenOffice, which usually takes most MS office users a few seconds to figure out.
By stability, I meant consistency.
What crap. You are talking about a company that got it's start from dumpster diving someone else's BASIC. Their whole business model is raping what they call "loss leaders" and publically state they will never enter a "market" untill it's "mature", in other words, they stay out of a technology until someone else has done all the work. Then they come in with the famous $500,000 check to aquire, shutdown or destroy ala Netscape, DRDOS and others. They also advocate "Extreem Programming" in which source code is not touched for the most part, only modified slightly. I imagine that most M$ developer time is put in trying to "integrate" the vast Byzantine raft of other people's code that they have aquired, one way or another. Yeah, and they steal code too, that's why they keep losing lawsuits.
Either you are deluded enough to think M$ cares about anyone or you are an Astroturfer. What version is the Steve Barkto program up to?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Yes. Yes that really is just wishful thinking. That's not the way Microsoft does business. Instead, they'll:
- research the Linux apps thoroughy,
- determine if the Linux apps really are better in any obvious ways (read: the marketing dept. can't pull the wool over potential customers' eyes with fake numbers in these areas)
- Now, with this info, they'll make their code just barely good enough to show that it's better than the equilvelent Linux version.
They can do it. They'll look at Linux source and modify it if necessary. And, if they do that, no they won't give it back to the community and yes they will get away with a GPL violation.If you think Microsoft isn't willing to do this sort of thing, you're living in a dream world with "lots of fru-fru, happy bunnies."
DISCLAIMER: I AM WEARING ASBESTOS THOUGH I DO NOT HOLD A MATCH:
This post is not intended as troll or a flame. It is not a statement of fact. It is, of course, only my (strongly worded) opinion.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Marketing yes. They already know how they suck but have yet to do much about it, besides lie and sue IBM. This can only be for marketing purposes. They have realized that they are too lame to tell a good lie or even direct PR firms to lie on their behalf.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First Linux gets deployed for testing in a test lab at Microsoft.
In order to get it's performance down to a level that they can compare Microsoft software to it they start storing internal documents on it and tell internal users to use that store to stay current.
Since the internal servers are now getting fewer hits, they start consolidating some of the services they had spread across several servers onto fewer servers, freeing up those servers.
A few of the free servers get rouge installs of Linux with Samba, and people discover that they can actually store files on these servers with some reliable expectation of seeing the files again a couple of minutes down the line.
The Micorsoft Win2k+3 servers start to respond even faster to the test systems and more consolidation goes on.
Someone in the test lab isn't happy that the Linux boxes are still outperforming the Win2k+3 boxen, so he convinces management to use them as DHCP servers for the campus.
This frees up even more of the internal Win2k+3 servers from consolidation, and someone says, let's show that SQL Server is better than (insert favorite Open Sourc or proprietary RDB engine that runs on Linux here) and people in the company realize they are actually getting close to real time results off of these servers, and start migrating applications over to them.
Since Microsoft is trying to move to a dbfs anyway, even more of the internal infrastructure starts getting moved over to Linux as the original Microsoft OS servers are relieved of the duties that they were originally tasked with.
Marketing comes along and asks how the new Windows 2K+3 is going, and IT is able to say with a straight face:
"We were able to consolidate the entire campus server farm down to a single system runing Win2k+3. And since no-one in house is actually using it, response time and recovery from failures has become a non-issue. We are saving millions of dollars every year because the quiet migration to an all Linux infrastructure has reduced the actual demand for systems to the point that we have been able to reduce our electrical usage by shutting down systems and reducing the demands on the cooling systems significantly. Our phone support teams are somewhat confused as they are getting calls about server issues that they have never experienced, however our developers have been able to get Win2k+3 running on a VMWare image under Linux and we have been able to simulate the issues that customers have been experiencing, without actually loosing any data or having any significant down time."
Marketing, "Huh?".
Ok, it's not likely to happen, but we can fantasize.
-Rusty
You never know...
I thought this meant that MS-Linux had been released. In any case, if it had been, then I would have had to get my hands on a copy somehow and try it out just to see what they had done.
;-)
One thing that I would definitely expect is Apache patched with patched patches to make it MS-crash certified with virus-enabling features.
Microsoft is serious about figuring out what Linux does better than their product and how. Then they will follow their age-old pattern of emulating it. Or perhaps I should Assimilate it (Just look at that Bill Gates Borg top of this page).
Of course we'll never hear the full results of their tests unless they accidentally put it on a public FTP server for a short time. Instead they'll edit it so that only the parts about how Windows is better will be released with all the blacked out parts replaced with FUD.
Everyone knows this. Not a surprise. Business as usual. The world continues to go round...
And we all know what comes from hurds... They rhyme with hurd, and they aptly describe MS' products...
You guessed it! The uber-new OS code named "turd".
"This step comes after Microsoft's recent admission that Linux is Microsoft's biggest threat after economic conditions."
Heh, doesn't this make anybody else just chuckle to themselves? It's like the lion saying that between a gopher, a squirrle and a rat, the gopher is it's biggest threat. I know it'll get modded flame or troll, but lets put things into realistic perspective here...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
(Long and disjointed, but there's a couple points in here, I promise! :)
Credentials: I dislike M$ business practices, and the software instability, and the creepy encroachment of Big Brother Bill.
That said, Windows does have a lot of useful functionality. While some of that has also been the cause of significant security issues (the cross-functionality of Office apps comes to mind), there are some things that I have not seen yet on Linux that will factor into the debate.
Another caveat: Some of my needs are decidedly rare in terms of the overall computing population, but I continue to feel it is a decided mistake on the part of the Linux community to overlook these issues.
For instance, I am a Japanese to English translator, and I have been quite negatively impressed with how difficult it is to deal with languages and fonts under Linux. This is one of MS's decided advantages -- and no, don't slag me for being concerned with idle fashions and appearances, when you're doing a lot of DTP, fonts and how they look on the screen are a real issue.
Linux has come a good way since I started using it some two years ago, but language is still a pain in the ass in a number of important ways. For instance, you need to log completely out of X in order to change certain language inputs. Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's impossible to simply change a setting (either GUI or via command line) and go from Kinput2 for Japanese to Chinput and start typing in Chinese.
Likewise, setting my input to Japanese causes KDE and Gnome both to use a butt-ugly font for any English in the UI. This is admittedly less important, but still something to consider -- eye candy is sweet, and draws users in. This particular font problem amounts to a bogey-flavoured Bertie Botts bean. Ew.
Windows has a very simple (on the user end) means of switching input methods via the taskbar, no logout required, and no googly fonts.
I brought this particular language issue with Redhat a while back in a feature request, and the fellow who wrote back seemed to think the IME switcher taskbar idea was mine. While flattered, I could only think that what the OSS/FS community needs to do is stop bitching about M$ and instead start asking why does Windows command such a huge share of the market. And look beyond marketing. Some of MS's UI design is quite smart, and I think OSS/FS could learn quite a bit from Windows.
If folks can stop being snooty for long enough to actually do this. Which brings up another issue -- there seems to be a clear divide in the community between the Mightier-Than-Thou (TM) geek clique, who are quite happy bashing, and others who are honestly interested in expanding Linux's mindshare and reach in the market.
Wading into the Slashdot stream these few months has been quite interesting in the schizoid nature of Linux vs Windows discussions, that makes me want to ask what exactly the priority is. If we truly want Linux to succeed, we could do worse than to take a close look at the present ruler of the OS world and emulate what *works*.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
> Stac
> Quicktime
> Eolas
> and many others collected right here
Well, from the 4 links you provided 3 are talking about patent infrigement, not code theft. And if it were somebody else sued for patent infingement I think you will be the first one to post something anti patent.
As for "Extreem Programming" - first of all you do not know what you are talking about. Source code in extreme programming projects is touched (and rewritten) quite a lot. It is just evolutionary process and not a full rewrite.
Second, can you give some evidence to your claim that Microsoft uses XP (Extreme Programming) as it's software development process? I somehow doubt it.
And we might add, what are you doing with your boxes?
Just logging uptime?
A Good Intro to NetBS
That's true, however, you never had control over their source code. If they change something that breaks your code, too bad, you wear it. If you use an open-source library, you can either (a) ship the library that works with your code, or (b) patch the library to work with your code.
Using GPL code is a conscious decision - either you use it, or you don't. If you do use it, you are going in with your eyes open; if you don't want to be subject to the constraints, don't use it.
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.
> My bad, I mispoke, Microsoft cares, would never steal anything and is constantly striving to imporve my productivity so that all my dreams can come true. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I love Big Brother. Eat me, Astroturfer.
I do not really care if you hate Microsoft guts, I just don't like the fact that you making thigns up so that Microsoft looks bad. The problem with that is that nobody will take your Microsoft criticism seriously.
Let's assume for a moment that what you say is true, and MS regularly steals codes from other companies. I don't believe it, but let's say it's true, for the sake of argument.
They still wouldn't steal GPL code.
Why not? Because there's no-one to buy out should they get caught. If they steal code from a company, and that company finds out and starts getting threatening, they can either bury them in the courts (just like everyone wants IBM to do to SCO), or buy them out to shut them up. No-one else is going to care (well, apart from all the bitching that would go on about it here, that is).
With GPLed code, that becomes a hell of a lot harder; there's a good chance that there'd be a grass-roots movement to defend the infringed IP, they might end up effectively taking on a fair proportion of OSS users and developers, etc. It's much harder to fight such a loosely-defined, nebulous enemy.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Tell it to this asshole. The problem is that I'm not making things up. I read them over and over and am able to point to a few good examples. Microsoft steals code and Bill Gates is a liar. From breaking other people's systems as a business model to dumbpster diving your first program to the exaples of patent infringment and code theft I cited, to bragging about BSD in their code to saying that free software is evil, to federally proven anti-trust violations. The fuckers are so evil the federal government noticed, sheesh. What do you have to offer that I can take seriously, Asstroturf?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions
This is incorrect. It should be "If you put GPL code in your software that your release as a binary, you have to release the source code or you've violated your contract (the GPL) with the code's owner and have therefore lost your right to distribute, which means you've infringed on the owner's copyright. If you read the GPL yourself (it's not that long and not that hard to read), you'll see this.
From that point on, it's just a straight copyright infringement situation, no different than if MS had acquired a copy of the source code to Borland's C++ compiler and stolen code from it to put into VC++, without permission. Would that mean VC++ now belongs to Borland? No, it would mean that Borland can sue and get awarded damages.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It is a free world. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to run Windows.
I'm sorry that you are so pissed off at Microsoft. In some situations (not all) they have better solutions. I would prefer a friendlier EULA too, but other companies are much worse.
Microsoft doesn't insist on Winmodems - the cheap modem manufacturers do.
Don't believe everything you read in The Register (and yes, I had previously read that Hotmail case, attended a couple talks on it, read a few internal reports, and watched the team I work in make improvements based on suggestions provided by the Hotmail team.
There are thousands of people at Microsoft who are passionate and personally dedicated to improving their software.
If you want to talk about quality problems, subscribe to bugtraq and watch the linux security problem annoucements come in, usually 10+ per day!
If you want Microsoft to leave you alone, that's fine too. I used to be rabidly anti-microsoft like you are, but then I actually talked to a few people that worked there and found out that it is a really nice place to work where almost everyone is very interested in producing a quality product.
And for the record, I still use linux every day and have a variety of unix boxen on my home network.
Where did you get the impression that copyright law is merely a civil matter? Yes, this seems to be the general consensus here on Slashdot; still, the uninformed opinions of a thousand babbling idiots do not reality make. It's true that copyright is often enforced through the civil court system here in the U.S., but you should be aware that copyright infringement is also a federal criminal offense, and has been practically since the beginning of time.
But that's not the real issue you raised. You mentioned something about the consequences of violating the GPL, which, as you said, is a contract between private parties and therefore enforceable under civil law:
If Microsoft (or any other party) is found to have violated the terms of the GPL, the court can order financial restitution--you're right about that. But it doesn't have to stop there. Besides awarding damages, the judge can choose from a veritable cheese platter of remedies to impose on the party in violation, including, in contract disputes, something called specific performance . This forces the party found to be in violation of the contract to comply with its terms.
Now, specific performance is rarely ordered as a part of judgments outside property-sale disputes, mainly because (a) plaintiffs usually care less about adherence to the contract than about receiving compensation for their financial loss, and (b) monitoring compliance is often impractical. However, if someone brought suit against Microsoft for violating the GPL, I imagine neither of these would be the case. Moreover, the clause mandating distribution of the source along with compiled binaries is arguably the GPL's primary raison d'etre, so the remedy of specific performance would seem especially appropriate here.
For these reasons, I happen to think it rather likely that if judgment went against Microsoft in a case over a violation of the GPL, the judge would in fact order the company to release the source of the affected software. In any event, the court would certainly at least have the option of ordering Microsoft to comply with the GPL's terms.
Anyhow, IANAL either, but I do have an ego the size of a corporate lawyer's paycheck. Does that count?
yours
M$ testing linux since end of 1998.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
Every freakin' feature in Gnome or KDE is stolen from Windows 95. All office suites are written to "closely resemble" MS Office. Should I continue? Show me one single innovative open source product targeted at desktop users.
Lets forget about the jokes. And instead lets try to imagine, what Microsoft Linux would really be like, if it was ever released.
I'm pretty sure it would include patches to the kernel, and they might even play by the rules and release the source for those. But there might very well be some closed source kernel modules as well. In addition you will not be allowed to copy those kernel modules. We can start guessing about what modules there will be. But I'm pretty sure one of them would be an ntfs driver.
Microsoft could get their usual GUI to run on top of Linux. Since others have done most of it, Microsoft could do it as well. The exact details about how Microsoft would do it are not easy to guess. They could use parts of Wine, but maybe, Microsoft want to do it another way. If they are going to use Wine, they could either use the latest version, or the last non GPL version.
But Microsoft could take a completely different route and not use any Wine code at all, instead they could use as much of the existing Windows code as possible. I wonder if this would be best done in a library or a kernel module. Probably they would like a real binfmt_exe.o kernel module with its own personality. It is probably going to map some large DLLs into the process address space, and maybe even some shared memory.
I believe programs written for Windows when running on this Microsoft Linux will have access to some NTFS features, that are not easilly accesible by normal Linux programs. It could be done either by the closed source library knowing about some secret ioctl implemented by msntfs.o, or by cooperation between msntfs.o and binfmt_exe.o. Possibly a combination; an ioctl, which is not only secret, but also only allowed to programs running with the exe personality.
I wonder what graphics drivers are going to look like. I guess they will probably ship with closed source kernel modules implementing drivers for various graphics chips. But of course they are probably going to be incompatible with XFree86. And might even prevent the ones needed for XFree86 from being loaded at the same time.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Netcraft sais a few other fun things.
.haeger
Take a look at this company. They've migrated from Linux to the latest and greatest from Microsoft.
I think the chart speaks for itself, don't You?
The switcher
When I see those figures I start to wonder, what is the great benefit of the switch? How do one motivate it?
"Yes, we've switched to something that costs more in licensing, has a bad security reputation, is rebooted daily and is a known target for hackers."
I'm guessing that isn't the sales pitch to the boss, but what could be?
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
If the GPL is declared illegal by the courts,
then you revert to the default license for
the program which means that you have no
rights at all! You cannot copy, you cannot distribute,
and you cannot a lot things. That means, you
now have less rights than before.
You have 5 months support life for RH 7.3.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Linux "zealots" didn't start this fight. Microsoft did. They are the ones that want to see Linux destroyed. It is only natural that Linux advocates would start to realize that Microsoft must fall for their system to live, because Microsoft has elimination of linux as their goal. I'd absolutely love to live in a world where you use whatever the fuck you want on your own platform, and it doesn't matter. *Microsoft* won't let me live in that world. When *THEY* stop trying to destroy interoperability, then I'll stop hating them. And yes, they have plenty of dedicated, smart, good people in the ranks - but they aren't the ones making the decisions that matter here.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
quote from article
Although shared source and open source are quite different, Cherry said--Microsoft doesn't let anyone but itself re-compile the code to Windows, for one--the end result may be essentially the same as open-source and Linux. "What people tend to forget is that there are gatekeepers in the open-source community, too," he said. "It's not a free-for-all. On every one of the open-source projects, there are two or three people who are the gatekeepers. And you have to make a pretty good case, accurate and technically astute, to get them to allow changes. That's how it should be."
uh-huh. No, we can get the code and compile it, and it's legal (GPL) microsoft's open source initiative dissalows you to recompile code. Here they tried to cloud uneducated minds (non-geeks) on how good microsoft is by telling half-truths on a national news website. A shame because it comes from a multinational company, therefore if their marketing people lie directly to people like that, what can one say of the way the company works? Lies?
I don't know about you but when a company which lies to its customers promises Digital Rights Management and total control of user's privacy, I don't really feel like jumping in.
Replace the "I" with "a company who has competition and trade secrets" and then see where the problem lies with GPL vs. a desire for keeping certain business secrets. It can be argued forever whether this is how things should be; for now we have to live with the way things are.
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
Do you seriously think that such a huge firm would not have already for YEARS deployed in labs the software of what it claims is one of its major competitors ???
Either it's already done, and it's not news, or they go to the next level and try to see if they can port some software (not that I believe we'll see Office or SQLServer on Linux someday, but Balmer or Gates must want to know if it is possible, just in case that had to change their direction 180 once again ), or just want to validate that MS software interoperates well (ie: as poorly as possible) with Linux.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
Stick Men
...precisely!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to my underground lair. I have gathered here before me the world's deadliest hax0rs, and yet, each of you has failed to hack Linux! That makes me angry and when Dr. Bill gets angry, Mr. Bugglesworth gets upset and when Mr. Bugglesworth gets upset, innocent penguins die!
um, not to nitpick but how exactly did you get a pentium 4 when windows 2k was released? or was that when the p4 was released?
-PsychoI3oy
mmm freeBSDelicious.
> It'd be cool to see some patches come from
> Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
The end of being M$-free? How awful (;
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.
Would be pretty cool.
I'd be VERY suprised if MS hasn't in effect created such a thing already.
It's not like they couldn't afford to do it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Be careful what you wish for.. The last case of a competitor contributing to Linux isn't going very well.
up and to the left...isn't that where people look when they're lying?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows has a good article about Windows 2003 testing in heteroegenous environments. Here's a quote from it:
"We've got just about every kind of server imaginable in here," Santino says, laughing. "If it's in their environment, it needs to work. Another thing that amazes customers is that they assume we won't test that [non-Microsoft] stuff. But that's not true. If you're using [IBM] DB/2, fine. We will test what they are using in their business."
----- rL
I agree with this. I think that when Microsoft has to choose between "maximum control" and "maximum $$$", they will choose maximum control.
Maximum control leads to maximum $$$. Not necessarily immediately, but in due time it does. Microsoft knows this. They control Office file format and because of that they rake sick loads of money. If they lost this control they would quickly lose a lot of Office sales.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Patching might actually be to their advantage. Remember how much everyone used to hate IBM? They started being nice to the developer and OpenSource community and we all gave them a second chance, perhaps Microsoft might actually be helping themselfs if they did start to do limited linux work, although that goes against everything you learn in business school I'm sure
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
Actually, no, that'll never happen.
Ok, fine. How do I remove this poison??
How is this a bad thing?
I know SlashDot is an avidly anti Microsoft crowd, and that I suppose I can understand... but, I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps.
Really, lets go with the far fetched theory that Microsoft is moving Unix to an in-house lab to identify its strengths and weakness's and to act accordingly? This is bad how? I was under the impression that the majority of people wished Windows was a better product... them looking at the weak points of Windows as compared to Linux, and in so far fetched world, copying the better parts of Linux, sounds like exactly what you've wanted all along?
Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux, well even yourselves have to realise how hypocritical that is! KDE, Konquer, Kdevelop etc... are all cloned or at the minimum, heavily inspired by their windows based counterparts.
Would it really be such a bad thing, if ( and MS has been doing this more and more ) Microsoft improved Windows, and made it more Linux like? Isnt that exactly what half of you have been asking for???
As far as calling this a FUD tactic, I think you are jumping the gun ALOT here... As of this point, Microsoft has said nothing negative about linux, or their intentions. In fact, if you read between the lines of this argument... they are giving a silent nod to linux and its legitmacy in the marketplace.
So, beyond some knee jerk primal desire to bash Microsoft, I CANT THINK OF A SINGLE REASON THIS ARGUMENT PROVIDES FOR DOING SO!!!
Dont get me wrong... Microsoft does all kinds of nasty crap... but this time... well... if anything theve complimented Linux. Playing devils advocate as to what their intentions are, is a bit stupid. Besides... we know what their intentions are... they want Linux pushed into a dark little corner and forgotten... Just as BeOS would have wanted to see with Windows... like MacOS would love to see with Windows aswell, or that Palm OS would love to see with Symbion... its business... seeing peoples intentions really isnt hard. Its called trying to win. You win by selling the most... simple stuff really.
I wonder if M$ will pay SCO or sue them or may be they are planning to add code to Linux and sit in the same SCO boat.
bin
look siG is kool
BUGTRAQ sometimes has several "Linux security problem announcements" in one day, but these are generally all of the distributions announcing updated packages for the same vulnerability (once referred to by Theo DeRaadt as "spam" :). Additionally, security problems in the actual base OS (whatever you want to include: kernel, system libraries, and a few window managers) are not very common; more than half the time, it's a vulnerability in some application I've never used, simply because so much more is included with a Linux distribution than with Windows.
So while Microsoft may have made marked improvements in stability, I don't think they're quite ready to start talking about security yet. Since they "proved" that the browser is an integral part of their operating system (and Win2klite hasn't materialized), I'd like to see a year go by where the base components of a Linux system (heck, include Mozilla) have less security announcements than those of a Microsoft system.
For the record, I'm not rabidly anti-Microsoft. The platform does have its advantages, but none of them currently apply to me.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The RH6.2 box is a webserver+mailserver - it gets a few thousand hits and a couple of hundred mails a day. Not heavy by any means, but not sitting around doing nothing either.
The TurboLinux box was a fileserver running Samba and Netatalk, serving files to a dozen Windows and Macintosh machines. It was fairly heavily used - the company does publishing, so some of the files were quite large for the time (at a time when HDDs were 4-8GB, it was serving 100-200MB files).
Neither of the boxes has ever crashed, except for the older one when its HDD died.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What I think will happen here is they will compare free software to their commercial offerings and say for some applications their stuff scales better.
What they are NOT testing is Linux running WebSphere, ORACLE, and other name brand commercial software. If they could prove that Windows ran THAT stuff better than Linux they would have a better claim.
My company does use Linux, Apache, and even Tomcat on some boxes, but we would be far more likely to run Oracle here than MySQL, and so would just about any other sizeable business. We just have too much invested in Oracle.
In Soviet Russia the state sells fruits and vegetables back to you...you have to grow them in your own garden and deliver them to the warehouse, of course :)
I guess this is what BillyGoat would love to do - have "citizens" write the code, test it, improve it and have it taken away from them to be sold as state-approved (Microsoft Empire Socialist State, aka MESS) version at a reasonable price of 10 years' worth of savings OR one year working as a Microsoft serf, w/o pay or benefits.
[oh, the story about Russia is actually true - they "gave" citizens of Soviet Russia the land (which people owned until the revolution of 1917) and let them cultivate it, raise cattle and have small businesses. Then Stalin came along, took the land back, put everyone into collective farms and sent Kulaks and "enemies of the state" to gulags and various labor camps. By the time he was finished, 20 million of them died. A Kulak is basically anyone who has/owns more than the stupidest, laziest village peasant - almost everyone.
Who would get the money for these finacial damages? The FSF?
-Dave
now everything good in the Opensource software will be included in Microsoft products and then ten years from now MS will sue every OSS user for copy infringment. MS -> includes OSS code into own product MS -> waits a few years MS -> says all code is really theirs MS -> sues every user using OSS software MS -> Owns all the data!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Without getting too over-the-top Oliver Stone about this, let's think about what MS has to gain:
1) Better understanding of the products that compete directly against MS products.
2) The ability to characterize the fragility of the protocols used by open source products. This lets them tweak interoperability of their products ever so slightly to insure that MS and open source will not coexist. This would include increasing incompatibility between OpenLDAP and ActiveDirectory, Apache and ISA Server, CIFS and Samba, ODBC and MyODBC, etc.
3) They have the potential of pulling Mindcraft-after-Mindcraft types of tests. These will be difficult to combat, as they'll have a unique understanding of MS and open source weak points.
sloth jr.
For these reasons, I happen to think it rather likely that if judgment went against Microsoft in a case over a violation of the GPL, the judge would in fact order the company to release the source of the affected software. In any event, the court would certainly at least have the option of ordering Microsoft to comply with the GPL's terms.
/. :)
Though I suppose it would depend on the perceived value of the illegally distributed material. If we're talking about a small amount of code, say only gzip, then demanding the release of the entire Windows codebase would cost Microsoft far more than the value of what the FSF "lost" via the illegal distribution. However, if Microsoft merged Windows and Linux into a single distribution and released this without following the licensing requirements from each external author, then you might be right. The value of tje illegally distributed code could be so great compared to Windows, being possibly equal in value or more, that it might bring about a specific performance judgment. Maybe.
Realize though, that the previous author suggested that Microsoft's policy was to prevent catastrophic IP loss over an accidental inclusion of a minor amount of GPL'd software into their product line. And I just don't buy that argument. No court would force MS to release Windows source just because some engineer included gzip, readline, or a few GPL'd source files. They wouldn't do it even if the illegal distribution amounted to important functionality bundled into the kernel. The outcome would be a financial judgment and possibly a fine under criminal statute.
But we're both not lawyers, hence we're both babbling idiots spouting nonsense on
Cheers,
--Maynard
Multiple people here claim that they work for Microsoft and that Microsoft has such a policy. I believe them. I also believe that Microsoft's top executives are paying a lot of attention to F/OSS these days, and that they consulted with some real lawyers before drafting their strategy.
That doesn't make them right, of course. But I think you've really got your head up your ass to dismiss them so casually.
I never said they didn't have such a policy. I don't work for them, so I don't know, but I'm willing to believe the reports that such a policy is written and implemented. I'm simply arguing that the policy wasn't implemented on the grounds the original author stated, that being that it was implemented over fear of catastrophic IP loss due to potential accidental copyright violations with GPL'd source. That's simply not going to happen.
It's a great FUD tactic though, and Microsoft does have a history of misrepresenting the potential legal threat to owners' IP when using GPL'd software. I presume the policy has more value from a PR standpoint than as legal protection. Though, of course, the policy can also be said to be a responsible preventive measure against accidental copyright violations within the Windows source tree, which is perfectly reasonable. So possibly it serves a dual purpose as a PR FUD tactic and rational preventative measure.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I've never understood the need for Samba. Microsoft's SMB implementation is a proprietary protocol and thus poorly documented, mostly from "reasonable force" reverse-engineering. It would make significantly more sense for someone to implement an NFS client for Windows.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I don't doubt that the policy exists, so I'm not arguing that you're misrepresenting internal MS policy. I'm just arguing against their stated rationale for that policy. I spoke to this in another message on this thread so I won't repeat myself here. I just wanted to be clear in a direct response that I'm not calling you a liar about the existence of the policy, or something stupid like that.
Cheers,
--Maynard
So they are single-purpose machines running what amounts to a few specific tasks.
There are doubtless printer servers out there in userland running MS-DOS that have stayed up just as long. Robustness is a measure of stability under a varying and complex load.
I agree that Linux is very stable, I remember only one notable time when my desktop Linux box just 'bip' crashed on me. A box I run anything and everything interactively on. It was notable because it was a one-time incident. But let's not give credit where credit isn't necessarily due.
A Good Intro to NetBS
>>It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond
They are going to bring GPL'ed and Open Sourced Software down by submitting their patches! Oh the humanity!!
Call the Stallminator!
Oddly enough, I used to work with the team that did U S WEST's web hosting for businesses (bonus points if you can name the year) called !nterprise. Yes, we all pronounced it bang-ter-prize.
They had a bunch of Compaq rack mount boxes, and someone (g. Wells?) configured NT/IIS on one rack, then Linux/Apache on the other. Even after much fine-tuning, the Linux box was SO much faster, that's what got deployed.
In the mid 90s.
In a Fortune-100 company.
Don't care how I get modded, it's just fun to ramble on like the old man I am.
--
Picture a company with several subsidiaries, geographrically diverse (Asia, Canada, Europe), each needing some local servers (DB, mail, DHCP etc).
With *nix tools you can:
Compare this to M$ servers, where each office needs its own M$-Monkey who supposedly runs the servers. Where when the Finnish M$-Monkey phones the Taiwanese DB person for help you have the wonderful "Click here then right-click there --- whaddaya mean the dialog box isn't there" conversation. Compare this to "ssh db.se.xxx.com" --- aha, there is your problem.
M$ admins are only cheaper per body, they are definitely less bang for the buck. *nix is a leveraging technology --- not even a really good M$ admin can match a decent *nix admin for effectiveness per unit time as the *nix admin has significantly more scope available to him/her in the systems they administer.
Very impressive list of testing. Tell me, does the person in charge of directing and prioritizing these tests at MS careful omit certain ones that they'd rather not have their engineers spend precious time on? Certainly TCP/IP standards are not all that important, so we don't need engineers and programmers to follow every nuance of handshaking and protocol design, eventhough it's written in some negligible document like RFPs and standards committee or if it was used by every other system out at the time to ensure proper communication, right?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
"The impression I get is that you think that these are inadequate reasons (I may, of course be wrong), but if that is the case, what is so bad about that?"
I can't speak for the original poster, but what -I- see as bad about it is roughly this:
* The MS GUIs make doing simple tasks by hand easy, but make doing complex tasks or automated tasks difficult or impossible.
* Command line with plain-text config files makes doing simple tasks more complex, but makes it much easier to automate tasks, or perform more complex configuration tasks.
The worst cases come when the program controlling the GUIs view of your configuration ends up out of sync with the actual configuration (Ever have a Windows bug that was fixed by typing the exact same values into a box then re-saving? I have.) or when the GUI designers decided that you won't need to adjust some value, and thus didn't include it in the GUI.
For what it's worth, my vote for best interface concept goes to OSX... pretty 'clickety-click' GUI used to hide the command line and text files... WHICH ARE STILL THERE FOR WHEN YOU NEED THEM.
There are some tasks for which a GUI is the best and most efficient answer, and there are tasks for which it is not. The parent post complains of tasks that would take moments in Windows seeming difficult in Linux (how long does it take to use the command line?), but as an administrator I invariably find the opposite to be true. It's easier to compose and enter a few command lines than to navigate through 6 layers of GUI and tabs in order to change several values... and heaven help you if you need to do it on 100 systems before you go home.
It's not the Microsoft GUI that's bad. It's a very nice GUI, in fact. Friendly and useable. The problem is that MS insists that the GUI is all that you will -ever- need and allows for no other options.
OH MY DEAR GOD!!! :) Yes... I'm being serious. I've wanted to muck around with it for years. I've tried ELK a couple of times, but it was never quite usable really.
they've updated ELK! I just looked!
I think I'm going to pass out...
I thought that project was deader than dead. Thank god, I can put it on my 8086 "laptop" I have in my closet
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Quite true. /. is very avidly anti-MS. However, let's get one thing straight here. It's a bad thing for anti-MS camps. All the pro-MS camps can go on with lives as far as I'm concerned. Trying to straddle the argument by wording your comment to both sides will not win any points.
Far fetched?. Why is it far fetched? Then what do you propose is the reason that MS is moving it's primary competitor into a lab? Do you play sports at all? Do you ever study your opponent?
I suppose you think MS invented the windowing environment? They must have, MS tried to trademark/copyright "Windows". Right? Who said people are annoyed for that reason? If that's the reason you believe people are upset about, then I suggest you think more long term. This is not about jelousy. It's about having a superior product under anyone's control. The operative word being one. Ever heard of the term power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the unix variants, some under corporate exclusive control and others under public contribution, but with all of them sharing and interoperating peices, distributes power. The fact that windows will be a better OS is great! I'm all for it! The fact that one corporation whose method of business has been to illegally and unethically shutout competition being the sole provider is not. Let me elucidate this point with an example. If you and another are the only ones selling cars, making improvements to your car to make it more attractive is fine. Slashing the other guys tires to make his less attractive is not. Now that he can't sell his car, you can charge whatever you want since nobody else is selling cars. You can even install a camera in it to watch the new owners.
We've been asking for a better windows only because some of us are stuck with it. If you make the argument (*sigh*... again) to not use windows if you don't want to, you've missed the boat on that argument. And that argument is the basis for why people are "oh-no"ing this move.
Excuse me? Microsoft has said nothing negative about Linux? Can someone please recall those links and quotes. You've missed alot while you were out to lunch. Intentions? *cough*SCO*cough*. I see you can read between the lines of the benevolent MS, but you can't read between the lines of MS marketshare agenda. Now why on earth would anyone want MS's silent nod on Linux?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Click, drag, let go. OK. Great! Alright... wait a minute, now my applications windows aren't lining up. Alright, I'll autohide the bar. No. That's not right, why did they shift. Great now the menus are hidden. I know I'll just... HOLD ON! WHY AM I HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME WITH A START BUTTON! ITS A FRIGGIN START BUTTON!
I could be totally offbase here, but I think the reasoning behind the design of the START button was to differentiate it from other windowing environments and to cater to those who are familiar with the ON button. See, it's just as easy as turning on your TV.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Hummingbird Software does this that and the other.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Excuse me, what part of my post indicated they were "single-purpose" machines? Both of them were responsible for two major pieces of functionality, not to mention that the older box also acted as a PPP dial-in server, a print server and a Netware server, and the newer box is also an FTP server.
(You want to know what a single-purpose machine is? The six NT boxes at my current company - one for Exchange, one for the PDC, one for an SMB fileserver, one for an HTTP proxy, one for virus scanning, one for a webserver. Those are what I would call single-purpose boxes.)
>The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions."
This is true... in order to use the GPL'ed code. If something like this went to court, under no circumstances would the judge force the offending product to be GPL'd. Thats not how it works. The charge in court would be that because MS didn't GPL the product, the had no license to use the GPL'd code, and therefore they are in violation of somebody's copyright. Then it becomes a matter of somebody (FSF maybe) collecting damages from MS, and MS removing the GPL'd code. This whole idea of the GPL magically opening closed-source programs is ridiculous. Which is not to say that MS shouldn't fear the GPL. Nobody likes being sued for copyright infringement. But the penalties they would face would be along the same lines as if they stole somebody's proprietary code, nothing more drastic.
Yet there are a lot of people on slashdot who disagree with you. I'm not one of them mind you, but why take the chance?
Lotus Domino. Does everything Exchange does (better), and then some. Runs on your choice of operating system, including Linux. Doesn't require a slough of other MS (or IBM) software. Installs in less than an hour. Not susceptible to the security threat of the week.
Sean
Why the fsck would I want a patch from MS for my secure and stable Linux box!?
Seems more like them trying to figure out how to make use of Linux/Opensource to figure out a way to break it or to take code from it to bolster their own system.
I have NEVER seen MS doing anything in the market or with technology which doesn't end up hurting the consumer, the group they are "getting to know", and/or their own PR.
If MS puts out a Linux product, I would NEVER use it.
I look at their security track record, their stability track record, and their support track record and I wonder why ANYONE continues to buy or use their "products".
But then again, that's just me and I've done my fair share of "growing up with MS" since MS DOS 3.01 through XP Pro. And quite frankly, I think I learned alot more from my life experiences than MS ever will.
I'd almost bet that down the road, MS will pull a SCO.
Winged Power Photography
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
Win any points? Straddle my arguments? Im not following here? Im unbiased as much as one man can be. I use Microsoft products, I use linux products, I use what I need to do my job and get paid. I see downsides to both camps, and upsides as well. So, are you saying that in order to be posting on /. you need to be a pro-linux or pro-microsoft zealot?!?! That seems a bit daft to me!
Likewise I use both Windows and various *nix. No I am not saying that you need to be pro-linux or pro-microsoft to post on slashdot? You stated that "I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps". Providing an introduction that is unbiased, you proceeded to provide your explanation of why you feel pro-linux people have over-reacted.
You got me here... my wording was poor. What I was trying to say ( and obviously failed is ), in regards to the creation of this lab... You dont believe that microsoft doesnt already look at EVERY competing product and "borrow" the best aspects of each? Do you think for one second, they are going to, as a result of creating this lab, suddenly say... "damn... Linux is so much more stable/secure/etc... then Windows XP/2K3... we should copy that feature!". I meant to say it is far fetched that this is the purpose behind the lap, not that this is what Microsoft is or isnt doing.
I can't make out a single sentence that you posted in the paragraph above. However, I will simply quote the article to address what the purpose of the lab is: "The project was started in May with an initial goal of determining the effort involved in building the kind of open-source platform that might be found in a typical business environment."
I would love to know how you twisted what I said to form that response! No, I know damned straight that microsoft did not invent the windowing environment... So far as history claims, it was Xerox. Not that I dont imagine it was done far before that. By your response, im assuming once again you are taking my comments out of context. I am talking in context to the article that was posted! Specifically, im talking about how Microsoft forming a lab to study linux, is not in and of itself a bad thing! Im not saying that Microsoft is an innocent little choir boy... or has never practiced unethical business practices... they have... hell, I would be hard pressed to find a business there size, that hasnt! To veer a bit off topic... I think that Microsoft's actions have been absolutely innocent, when you compare it against so of what Larry Elison has tried to pull at Oracle! However... as far as interfaces go... once you find one that works, and works well... its pretty stupid not to adopt it! Kinda like Satelitte TV/TV Guide/Digital Cable... they all have minor variances, but from copying each other, they have basically come up with a very efficent standard UI. Why not borrow from your competitors... in the end, as a user... I would rather user something well design... as opposed to using something just because X company made it!
I will re-iterate the point. "Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux" is what you said. "Who said people are annoyed for that reason?" is what I said. So the question still stands. Who said people are annoyed that Microsoft is lifting ideas from Linux? I certainly am not. There's nothing wrong with lifting. It's an efficient method of re-using successful products, features and processes. I think the problem is what MS does after they lift it, as shown by their track record.
Um... once again... I never said that. Basically, all I said is... why would you not what Microsoft software, Windows in particular, become better? NOWHERE, did I ask you not to use windows. If I did... I would love to see the exact quote where?!?!
The reason I don't want Microsoft Software to become better is because I want the Microsoft business to not get any bigger than it already
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
In 1990 quite a few. There were real options and more importantly had been many real options just a few years earlier. In 2003 very few think about the choice. Hopefully in 2007 will be much more like 1987 than 1997 in terms of choice.
if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO VIOLATE COPYRIGHT
Yes you are in trouble if you violate the GPL, but not much more than many other ways a company can get in trouble. Last I heard Microsoft is full of xerox machines and CD burners that can be used to violate copyright, and it does not seem to be making them panic.
To the moderator who called this a troll: It's only a troll if the person who said it doesn't actually believe it and is lying on purpose to get a rise out of people. I was not doing that. The fact that my actual real opinions piss some people off does not mean it's trolling to mention them. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to hide what they think if they know it will be controversial, then get back to me after you grow up.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO VIOLATE COPYRIGHT
And if you do violate copyright, you get sued and one of the possible remedies is "release the source". Which is a more likely remedy when the "value" of the copyright is zero like it is for OSS projects.
Yes you are in trouble if you violate the GPL, but not much more than many other ways a company can get in trouble. Last I heard Microsoft is full of xerox machines and CD burners that can be used to violate copyright, and it does not seem to be making them panic.
Yup. And how much you do want to bet it's against company policy to xerox a book verbatim or copy music cd's?
Being able to look at copyrighted code but not copy it into your software is VERY common, happens in a million ways every day in business, and the GPL is in no way special. The only special thing about the GPL is that it gives some rules about how you can violate the copyright, but if you choose not to do that then the GPL is exactly the same as copyright. Business have dealt with copyright for two hundred years and should have no problem working with GPL code, except that Microsoft wants to spew FUD to scare people away from it.
Once again, I must reiterate, this is my first test of running Linux as a "Desktop!" Though I have already logged a Windows XP Crash, pretty embarrassing that it only took a week, while the Linux Counterpart is still chugging along. 23:08:54 up 19 days, 2:52, 5 users, load average: 0.49, 0.25, 0.35 I have RAID 5 configured with Hot-Swap Drives and a UPS with Dual Processors and Dual Hot-Swap Power Supplies, so a lost hard drive or a lost power supply, or even a loss of power is a poor excuse for my desktop to drop out on me, I hope it makes a year or more.
Place something witty here
The problem is when the copyrighted code is written to solve a problem similar to what you're solving.
If I looked at some code, then 2 months or later I work on a problem similar to what that code solved, and my solution looks an aweful lot like that code I looked at (ala SCO v IBM), I'm in trouble -- it doesn't matter if I came with it up on my own -- I've been tainted. If that did happen for real, do you honestly think that one person here would believe MS if they said that the code wasn't copied? No, OSS advocates would lynch 'em and demand that they release their source.
Now, you might disagree with it, but if you were in the position MS is in, would you have a different policy?
My XP has only crashed once and this was dues to a faulty harddrive. Haven't lost any data (thanks to NTFS).
That said... IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Im not talking about Microsofts anticompetitive behavours... or nasty business processes, or buggy software... none of that! Im talking about this article, and nothing more! In this article, I dont see what Microsoft has said that would solicite a negative response from the anti-microsoft camp. Im not asking why there is an anti-microsoft camp... and in this context, I really dont give a damn... Im trying to discuss this article itself, from a neutral perspective... and how, infact the comments made could be viewed as good in the open source commun ity!
:) I'm in all agreement.
No need to get excited.
Companies study their competition all the time, I would have to agree, there's nothing wrong with it. If we were to replace "MS" with another corporation name that doesn't have such a remarkably notorious history, this forum post would go unnoticed by most. The context of MS practices is exactly that which gives this topic 578 posts, many of them being anti-MS camp objections.
Let me get this straight. You know all too well MS behavior and practices. You want to discuss the article without talking about MS anticompetitive behaviors (lets not forget that the article is about MS creating a lab to study their competition). And then you don't see what MS has said that would solicit a negative response from the anti-MS camp?
LOL. I'd like to discuss this further. Really I would. I'm extremely curious to follow your thought process in this. It baffles me and I must know!
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Saying that the GPL is somehow special or more dangerous than the thousands and thousands of other copyrights and contracts that exists in the programmng business is pure FUD. Anybody saying anything about having to be "careful" about GPL code without also saying that that is true about virtually every non-GPL piece of code is spreading it.
With Windows tools you can:
... this is because you can script & automate pretty much every conceivable thing in windows (mind you, I'm referring to 2000 and above).
... windows is written with the assumption that every sysadmin is also a competent programmer, and the tools are focused on that. The equivalent to shell scripts is WSH/WMI/ADSI in the windows world.
- Create (bootable) server images that deploy on either CD/DVD media or over the network (RIS)
- Login remotely if necessary (rarely) or use any of the command line, gui, or programmatic tools to remotely administer any machine. Rather than being limited to just remote shell, you can do remote shell (RDP), remote management via GUI tools (computer management, etc), remote management vs command line tools (resource kit & support tools), or remote management via scripting (WMI, WSH, ADSI, etc).
- you can have a small group of knowledgeable and experienced windows admins
You are certainly welcome to install servers at each location, and depending on the bandwidth available on your WAN link, this may or may not be a good idea.
If you do choose to go that way, you can use DFS and Sites to (automatically) have the clients at each site preferentially use network and file-server resources local, but then failover to the central site if anything should go down.
The comments above are often made by people who are not experienced windows admins. There is very little you cant do via command line, and absolutely nothing you cant do via scripting or programmatic access.
This leads to one of the key distinctions between unix and windows administration
Thanks for pointing these out, I didn't know of them. I would expect any decent OS to allow these features, looks like Windows just took a while to get there :)
Your statement: There is very little you cant do via command line, and absolutely nothing you cant do via scripting or programmatic access. applies equally to *nix, except that the access to the tools feels more natural to me as the OS is text/script based from the start.
I have another point though, one which I find has made many of our (long-time) windows admins stop and think: I have been learning/using *nix since about 1988. I have not yet had to "throw away" any knowledge as the core of the system, the tools and the functionality hasn't really changed. Yes, implementation details have changed, but once you have grokked the system these changes don't bug you. Even going from Linux to OSX has been easy (and fun - try it).
On the DOS/Windows platform, I have used nearly every version of DOS since 2.2 and every version of Windows up to 2000. There is a lot of knowledge which I really no longer use, and every update "breaks" some existing knowledge. There is no such thing as an XP admin with 30 years experience (or even 3), and the time and effort lost through the breakage is not worth it to me.
ax