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
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.
MS Linux
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
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
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
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'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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The main argument is that Windows sysadmins get paid less than Unix/Linux sysadmins. I can almost understand this point, but I've gotten the impression that one *nix admin can handle more computers than one Windows admin can, so that would even out the sysadmin costs. In addition to that, I have a lot of trouble believing that the difference in sysadmin cost is enough to make up for the fact that Linux is infinitely cheaper than MS software. Also, with MS software, some companies have had to hire an extra person to make sure they are in compliance with all the MS license oddities, so that has to add to Windows' TCO.
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
Maybe they could put in a patch that would make Linux display a friendly blue screen when it crashes instead of a kernel panic message. Embrace and extend!
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.
I'm an employee. There's no reason for me to respond anonymously: the corporate policy is well publicized.
.el files to keep things clean. His attitude is that it's easier for him to keep using a tool which he recommends other developers avoid than it is to learn a newer and more efficient tool. I've asked him if he ever received any pressure to change. His answer was, "Never. [Our boss] doesn't care what we use to write code; he cares that we write code."
Internally, corporate policy has always been that we can use whatever tools we want, provided that they serve the purposes of our jobs best. The only restriction under which we work is that developers or other people who have direct check-in rights to any of our trees (think "committer privileges"; it's the closest thing in the FOSS world) are not permitted to examine code released under GPL or any other viral license.
So, yes, for testing interop, we have a lot of Linux/Apache boxes around. We have a lot of Perl. (We've been supporting ActiveState for years, after all.) If there were a competitive FOSS compiler available, I'm sure that some groups would use it. There isn't. We've certainly had teams do comparitive analyses.
One of the developers in my group is a forty-something year old guru who run XEmacs on his main dev machine. Whenever he reformats his machine, he does a pure binary install and deletes the
Maybe he's drunk too much of the KoolAid -- but my experience tracks his. Think about it. Why would we care? If one of our gurus is more productive using XEmacs, that is at worst a data point for the Visual Studio folks.
I don't think most OSS developers are out to kill M$. They have an itch that needs scratching. So they do their developer thing, and make a system that works for them. And thus we all benefit.
Destroying microsoft is beside the point. As a matter of fact I'd be happier if more developers would ignore windows and stop copying windows. KDE, OpenOffice, Evolution. Give me Blackbox, vim/latex, and mutt any day. Remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I wouldn't mind Linux patches from Microsoft if they were tastefully embroidered, and matched the color of my jacket.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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*
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
Coming Fall of 2092.
Karma whorin' since 1999
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.
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 can't believe this troll flamebait is modded as "interesting." Such is /.
Be afraid, be very afraid. Building labs like this, and investing in "learning the enemy", is the singular reason why Microsoft wins time and again. Regardless of what you think of their tactics, you have to admit that building a Linux testing lab -- from a "learn the enemy" standpoint -- is a damn good idea.
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?
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.