Slashdot Mirror
Meet Martin Taylor Of Microsoft's Open Source Test Lab
securitas writes "Martin Taylor was recently appointed as Microsoft's open source and Linux strategist and is responsible for Microsoft's open source and Linux test lab, mentioned on Slashdot last week. Taylor says his goal is to change Microsoft's competitive strategy by pursuing a fact-based approach instead of continuing the previous discredit-and-undermine strategy that was characterized by calling open source and Linux software 'a cancer, un-American and bankrupt' among other things. Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'"
Fact-based UNIX Debunking. Why confuse the argument by trying to have it match reality?
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
One more geek on the chopping block. See you in line Mr Taylor!!
"You can't ever take it and use it in a job creating activity."
;P
But Bill!!!!!
If not for FreeBSD (could be Linux if I wanted it to be) I'd be unemployed right now! I won't put Windows in my data center unless my boss twists my arm (which he has done once because a customer DEMANDED IIS).
BTW, FreeBSD and MacOS X rock. I use Linux from time to time, but something about BSD just sits more correctly with me for some reason...feh, bring on the holy war.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Martin Taylor is actually a revolutionary new AI developed by Microsoft. He'll be a part of Windows 2005 if everything goes smoothly. Think of him as Microsoft Bob's grandson.
You flush it.
The biggest 'fact' is that Microsoft is a big company that has the resources to actually pursue this kind of 'fact finding' mission.
No Linux company is in any position to set up a Windows lab to discover the relative merits of Linux in opposition to Windows. Luckily, the OSS fans are willing to gobble gobble up any anti-MS FUD available.
Not so with MS 'fans'.
The "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Those guys are just too much...
.sig
I see into... the future... I see this "lab" only producing... whitepapers where Microsoft.... wins!
Whoa. There's a surprise.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
"by focusing on 'just the facts.'"
invalid code page error
"by focusing on 'just the facts.'"
invalid code page error
"by focusing on 'just the facts.'"
invalid code page error
"by focusing on 'just the facts.'"
invalid code page error
Please contact your harware vendor.
Microsoft: Our software sucks, Linux will dominate us within the next 5 to 10 years, and we have just run out of coffee at our headquaters, now who are you going to invest your confidence in, Us, who probably won't be awake during the night since we have no coffee, or Linux. (BTW, we did have coffee when we were writing Windows, so fatigue is no excuse we can use)
0 posts visible at a mere +2. 26 replies beneath your current threshold. Behold the power of Microsoft.
this is what they should have done in the first place. The best way to win customers is to earn them -- show them that your product is better than the competition. You'd think, with billions of dollars, a standing army of support personnel, and a solid customer base, they'd focus on making their products better and more reliable rather than trying to push their monopoly around. I hope some excellent upgrades and fixes to MS software come out of this.
--My other sig is a ferrari.
I find it funny that Microsoft is actualy going to attack linux by learning it. They still have a strangle hold on the market, I don't even understand why they're going after linux as a 'competator' but hey everyone wants to rule the world right?
I am full of goo... black evil goo
If Martin Taylor the guitarist knows he's got
an evil alter ego at MS?
siggy played guitar
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'
So in other words, completely unbiased and perfectly objective studies that people can trust to give an accurate picture of Microsoft products.
I mean, I don't necesarilly trust OSS-sympathetc studies... but that doesn't mean I'll swallow MS propaganda whole.
no thanks
Like a cancer, which is primarily defined as 'cells that keep growing unchecked', Linux server usage can fit into this category. Therefore, Linux is a tumor on Microsoft server market share.
Linux is un-American. When you use a Linux machine, you are at the whim of a Finn, Linus Torvalds. Think about it. A Finn. Contrast this to Microsoft, where wholesome American coding practices abound.
Linux is bankrupt. One only needs to look at whoever made Nautilus, I forgot the name. Mandrake, of course, is also going through the process of bankruptcy.
Though I'm sure their "new approach" will still contain a fair measure of FUD, actually hearing factual arguments from MS will be a nice change of pace. I respect arguments based on fact, even if I disagree with them.
[...] highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security [...]
Microsoft's products surely have advantages over their open source counterparts, but security? Come on!
That Microsoft telling the truth about security would pretty much boil down to: "Please, don't buy our product."
Okay, enough M$ bashing. So what DOES Microsoft do right?
Well, okay, they have developed a pretty reasonable method for getting patches and security fixes out the door. They do so for free (as in prostitutes) and though they could have completely shut out Apple's MS Office line, they continue to develop it.
Apple and Red Hat both have competing systems to the Windows Update schema, and I have to say I like Apple's better. I haven't had much interaction with Red Hat's. Anyone?
Open Office I'm really really really really hoping goes Quartz native soon, but according to this posting it's not likely do to API updates. *sigh*
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'"
Taylor is gonna have a pretty boring job...
FUD was so much easier, now MS is actually going to have to try for a decent product.
Why not try to compete with linux? Instead of changing argument style, put a decent POSIX layer and lots of services in Windows by default. Create standards and provide complete reference implementations for multiple platforms. Why MS is losing market share to others is because of the competitive advantage other products have.
FUD Undt Darl-masturbation
yeah...... OK
It seems the strategy has changed from lying their asses off to being honest about lying their asses off.
Are we supposed to accept them now and say it's OK to lie so long as you are honest about it, eventually?????
Or is this "how to treat consumers like morons and get away with it"?
Microsoft is changing its tactics because its earlier attacks on open source have backfired, Raymond said. "A lot of people they talked to were interpreting 'Linux as cancer' as self-serving FUD (an attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubt), and the only thing it was doing was making Linux look good," he said.
Once people know the facts about Windows, Linux will look even better, anything comming from Microsoft will be FUD, so they better find a third party, well they can't even do that because they will pay them an overwhelming amount to be anti-linux.
However, Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates, in a question-and-answer session at the same event, seemed to swerve off the factual course as the discussion heated up a bit. "The open source license is not open, because you can't take it and ever use it in a job-creating activity," Gates said. It's not open because I can't sell it!
Did anyone else feel bad for Bill?
I keep seeing the acronym. I haven't seen who coined it either, or it used straightaway without the acronym. The closest I come is 'fscked up drivel' ...
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Fact: XP runs faster than RH9.0
Untold: the XP was running on a 3GHz P4 w/ 512MB and the RH9.0 was on a 400MHz P2 with 256MB of RAM
Fact: MS OS'es have less bugs than Linux
Untold: Because one bug in SSH counts at least 15 times -- once per distro.
Fact: MS is more secure than Linux
Untold: The MS box tested was fully patched, running NO services, was connected to an ISA firewall...and to no other computer. They'll also forget to mention that the machine wasn't turned on.
Fact-based campaign. Will half-truths be considered facts?
If you read the article, Open Source Initiative President Eric Raymond was the one who said that Microsoft's previous strategy was claiming Linux was a "cancer." Taylor never used those words and never suggested that was Microsoft's previous strategy, as the headline suggests.
All Taylor admits is that previously Microsoft had defaulted to an "emotional" argument, and that now they are switching to a "fact-based" one, whatever that means.
The only reason I'm correcting the submitter here is that it makes no sense to put words in people's mouth, even if you hate them. It is counter-productive to legitimate debate and argument.
'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'"
Coming from the security-hole-ridden IE/OE, and $299 for a copy of XP Microsoft? Those are Advantages?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security
Microsoft announced today that they are laying off a Mr. Marting Taylor, citing the fact that he had no work to do.
Taylor, head of Microsoft Linux Open Source Test Lab, said today 'fact-based studies focusing on areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.' conclusively prove:
Linux is 'a cancer, un-American and bankrupt', among other things.
Microsoft: Same cr*p, different way.
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'
LOL, reading this I have to lough, it sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister just landed himself a new job!
"The server has not been hacked! There are no hackers in the mainframe! The infidel hackers are dying right now from Linux viruses we have leashed upon them!"
Does this mean, studies that don't highlight Microsoft's advantages won't be focused on and funded? You don't say...
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
It's bloody hard to compete against free software and I'm actually amazed to see them try this approach instead of their usual media contamination methods.
Of course, I don't hope they win as I think Windows stinks (you can pry my OS X from my cold, dead fingers) but kudos to them for playing fairly for once.
I hope your joking and I'm wasting my time, but if not...
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Gee, I wonder if their TCO study calculations will include the cost of worms and virii(?) that only affect Windows platforms/outlook/IE? Every time a new worm comes along I wonder if people realize the hidden TCO costs that sticking with MS incurs.
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
"Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'"
You mean like this one, this one, or this one How about this one?
Translation:
"The open source license is not open, becuase you can't take it and ever use it in a job-creating activity at Microsoft "
One of the best features of open source, is its ability to melt away unnecessary expenditures of money on software not directly related to the business goals or your company. It is inconceivable that any right-headed CIO or CFO would spend penny one on a "Word Processor", for example. The ONLY company that this decision would hurt is Microsoft. A company frees up virtually 100% of their software dollars to hire real, local software developers to develop solutions to their own, personal, business problems.
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
.... you're an idiot, but I repeat myself.
/. We got rid of Jon Katz I'm hoping you're next.
Why don't you stop posting crap and go and write some code? Oh wait a minute I forget you can't write code. Instead you post trolls for articles. How sad, even sadder is that you're still working for
Go on on my karma can take it.
Call me from Missouri. I'll buy that for a dollar. There's a sucker born every minute. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. Clap on -- Clap off. Set it... and FORGET IT!! Tastes like chicken, but it's NOT!!
More FUD to spin, trust me. Whey they say they're not spinning FUD, THEY REALLY ARE!!!
Praise "Bob"!
This article is definitely worth a look.
- Francois
"Microsoft's products surely have advantages over their open source counterparts, but security? Come on!"
Of course! When was the last time anyone broke into a machine that was down?
Here's UrbanDictionary's definitions... although only the top three apply to this conversation (I hope).
but keep your enemies closer"
"know thy enemy"
"embrace and extend"
if you can't beat em, learn what they do best, replicate, and make it yours.
you do the math...
They are smart cookies.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Oh, so that's what the blue screen is for!
I will never curse the glorius blue screen of security again!
I know quite a few Microsoft people who are quite knowledgable about Linux and open source software (some of whom contribute to open source projects in their spare time, etc), who are quite capable of rational discussion on the topic of open vs. closed source, and why it's good for customers to use MS products. If MS starts attacking open source software on rational grounds, they certainly have the resources to do so effectively. And in the world of technology, such an approach might be more successful than their emotion-based attacks.
After all, it's been fairly easy for open source advocates to discredit Microsoft's initial relatively incoherent ramblings; "cancer" and "communism" type name calling did more to discredit MS than their opponents. So while MS' FUD attacks were dangerous because there was a lot of money/press behind them, they were ultimately unproductive.
If MS can make a solid, businesslike case that MS soutions are better than open source that's likely to carry more weight. Imagine, for example, if there were a credible, objective study that showed that (to make up a hypothetical scenario) the total TCO for Windows 2003 as measured in production is lower than Linux, or the application development costs are lower using Windows and the associated frameworks, that'll at least allow them to retain current corporate customers, and perhaps even go back to growing enterprise marketshare.
I think that even though MS competing more effectively makes everyone's else's lives harder, ultimately a shift towards civilized debate is good for the industry. In business settings, Open Source must be able to win on objective, pragmatic merits, not just on principles. Winning on both principles and pragmatics makes open source unstoppable. If the competition reveals weak points in the open source arguments, that's _good_ because that means that they can be addressed, and everyone wins.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
And I thought MY job sucked. ;)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
is the real father.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
(Here is CNN report on the security of Windows vs Linux by Bill Gates)
:) Either way, buy Windows!
Mr Gates: Well, here we plan to show you how secured it is in Windows as opposed to Linux...oh shit...
(eh...we have some technical problem here with the RPC vulnerability.. One malicious hacker had just formated the demo machine hard drive ZAP clean!)
Mr Gates: heheh.. we will try better next time
Gawd, Microsoft is crazy, idn' it? IDN' IT??!!
Today must be opposite day. ;)
I can highlight the advantages of open source over closed source on all of those points. Funny thing about TCO, though. When it gets calculated, you can sometimes just assign abitrary numbers to skew your results.
"Hmm, our outsourcing company charges $50 an hour. But that other company across town that we never use charges $150 an hour for lower quality work, so we'll put that in our numbers. Yay! TCO is down! What incredible figures we'll have for marketing!"
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
by the company one keeps.
Working for Microsoft's FUD squad ranks somewhere between selling crack to school children and the SCO management team.
In case you're wondering, the crack dealer is the more respectable of the three.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
subject asks it all.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It has nothing to do with the article.
MSFT's stock price performance since the beginning of this year, where it has badly underperformed its peers, is very telling. The market senses the worm is turning, MSFT has acknowledged the threat, and now they are beginning to take it seriously. But the more attention they give to opensource competition the more publicity they give it. That's the beauty of the OS model, MSFT marketing dollars go to raise the OS profile.
>Taylor says his goal is to change Microsoft's competitive strategy by pursuing a fact-based approach
hmmm....they'll probably get their 'facts' from the same source as the Bush administration...
-mojo
Have anyone every tried contacting MS via abuse@microsoft.com etc? You always get a guy called "Ronaldo", and he always replies with stuff COMPLETELY irrelevant. I'm sure he's a bot. :P
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Yeah, yeah, coined by some guy I can't remember to describe IBM's way of splattering sh*t in other company's products. :)
"Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM", or something like that.
Except that this was in the 1980's and now IBM is our friend (or at least, foe of our biggest foe
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Remember in Final Fantasy 3 (for SNES) when this seemingly evil empire decided to crack down on one of its evil leaders and state that they wanted to reform themselves? But later on, that leader (Kefka) got a slap on the wrist, took power, and basically killed everyone and everything...
Spooky...
It's clear from reading Slashdot that Microsoft could benefit from embracing the open source values of Linux just like Linux could benefit from the satanic worship and baby sacrifice that Microsoft utilizes in its development process.
They are going to hire McBride and Boise to legally harras any media outlet until their pr is stated as fact?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
This could be a good thing - it gives open source developers a change to observe and plug any weaknesses. While MS examines and reports on the weaknesses of OS solutions, take note and don't get angry - get coding!
My rights don't need management.
I really hope Taylor is serious and I really hope that Microsoft does produce some REAL facts easily backed up and replicated which do indeed show some areas of superiority over OS for their products.
Then all the anit-MS bigots (and I am one of them) and OS-developers will have a worthy goal to shoot for - something concrete to "improve" upon - rather than just bemoaning Microsoft's evils.
And perhaps in the meantime I will be soothed to learn that Windows ME isn't the pile of shit I've come to think of it as. It will still crash on me every single day without exception, sometimes during shutdown, but at least I will rest comfort knowing that it brings the computer to a grinding halt with a regularity I can set my watch by.
While pretty much most of these posts are poking fun at this annoucement, it can only be a good thing for computing in general - or can it?
What will happen to Linux if Microsoft learn from it? You should always know your enemy, and if MS can pull off Linux better than Linux does it itself, then open source has a lot to fear. What if you mixed the good parts of MS apps with the good parts of Linux OS? What then?
And do you know what? MS are in a better position to pull this off than the open source community. I see paltry rip-offs of MS GUIs all the time, but they're never done right.
So just suppose MS get's it right, as they sometimes do. Imagine they've woken up to what's good about Linux - they think like you, then they take that knowledge back to their products... that kind of thought does one of two things; it either gives open source a kick up the back side, or it makes you all sit back and realise that the whole antitrust thing was a drop in the ocean. They have their millions now, and all they can do is spend them on making better products. What better a first stop than your competitors....
coined by some guy I can't remember
Gene Amdahl.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Isn't this the same guy who sold monorails to Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway?
T&K.
Political language
>> The only reason I'm correcting the submitter here is that it makes no sense to put words in people's mouth, even if you hate them. It is counter-productive to legitimate debate and argument.
Actually, the only reason you needed to make than correction is because Slashdot still refuses to hire editors. Any competent editor would at least verify the facts and the veracity of those quotes.
Slashdot doesn't do that, claiming that they just pass on the submissions as written, warts and all.
Of course, that's a bogus assertion, because Slashdot does perform the most basic functiom of an editor: it decides what submissions get published.
By claiming it doesn't edit, Slashdot is (A) lieing; and (B) playing Slashdot readers for suckers.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership First, you need a lab to find (or at least invent) such things...
Web Design & Software Development
The back of my old Linux Hardware Solutions t-shirt has the following quote from Ghandi next to the penguin:
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
I'd say Microsoft has now reached the third line regarding Linux. This is a good sign.
Jan. 31, 2001 Wired: Microsoft thinks Linux is doomed, and predicts that many Linux businesses will falter and fail before the end of the year.
It's made out of people!^?^?^?^?^?^?^?lawyers!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I agree, except I'd expect Microsoft to deal with Linux on a couple of different fronts. I mean, what company out there uses the totally honest approach? Everybody does what is in their power to keep customers.
.NET, Server 2003 seem to steps in the right direction. Linux probably hasn't hurt this effort.
Early on they could deal with Linux via FUD (although I'd argue there was a good deal of FUD flung from both sides.) Now they are going to start investigating other methods, heck maybe down the line offer Office for Linux? Who really knows? Would it kill Microsoft to offer a version of Linux, as well as keep the Windows platform if the future requires it? I mean, say Linux grabs 20-30% of the market. Microsoft is extremely big and powerful company with a lot of smart people and could offer a good distribution. So they'd have to decide between their ego and their bank account.
Microsoft has always been able to deal with changes in the market, and this is one of them. How fast they change depends on adoption of Linux.
I'd also say the MS platform has been moving along well -
Of course, maybe this is all a dream and they'll never touch linux. The future is exciting!
But Linux DOES cost more than Windows! Just check the price sheet at SCO!
Its funny but I can see the acronym FUD extending to areas outside of tech forums and appearing in main news items as adopted slang. In political circles and news its simply called "spin", and youre either good at being a spin doctor or youre not.
Microsoft are very much the latter.
"It is not a religious discussion, it is a business model discussion," Taylor said "We kind of defaulted (to emotion) because we could not think about Linux in the right way."
Not- 'we could think about it the right way' but 'we attacked it in completely the wrong way.'
MS are behaving less like an innovative and modern tech company and behaving more like a dinosaur political party on the wane.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Well i find that very funny. does anyone else? with the fact that my "new updates are ready to be installed" popping up every day and the majority of them being Security updates. They really shoudl work on there Trustworthy computing initiative before trying to rip other OS's Security. my 2 pennies
Remember back in the day when there was the Mac OS and DOS? Then Windows came out...not as elegant but had the features. Since MS-DOS was already entrenched in the market, having this new Windows was easy to push on everyone.
Enter 2003. Microsoft will look at all the features of open source and take what they like. They'll toot their horns about how it is compatible with Apache for serving this up, compatible with Linux for doing that, etc etc. Yet down the road...funny...things don't run as well with the Longhorn/Linux mix poor Company A has running in their back room. "Well, yes...Longhorn is compatible with this, but we find it runs much better with Windows Server 2005" Mr. MS Rep says. And the same will go with a myriad of other products and services...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Fact was a nice word, I'll miss it. But no matter, we still have the teeshirt:
Front side
picture: Iraqi minister of communications
caption: "there are no Americans in Iraq"
Back side
picture: his Billness
caption: "there are no bugs in Microsoft software"
...they only use Microsoft(c)(R)(tm)-compatible facts. After all, you can't trust just any old fact, can you? What good is a fact if it hasn't been centrally acknowledged by a competent corporation? It needs to be passed as Factually-Uniform Documentation.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Gene Amdahl
Who used to work for IBM, then founded his own high-end computer corporation, getting a large number of government contracts. He is also the person who discovered Amdahl's law, which applies to the amount of speedup accomplished by parallel computing.
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
ROFLMFAO
Linux didn't do that well in the comparison.
So what did the kernel developers do? Did they give up? Did they all mail their resumes to Redmond? No, they improved the SMP performance of the kernel, so that by the time 2.4 shipped, it could beat Windows 2000 - and I imagine XP now too - in similar benchmarks.
I don't doubt that Microsoft is going to find lots of things that Windows does better than Linux does. That will serve as a guide, to help the Free Software community set their priorities as to which problems to focus on first.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Honestly, and flame me if you will (/. comments have always been themed with "down with microsoft") but this sort of stuff is what my boss looks at. And his boss looks at. But here is my take.
"Will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership."
Secuirty
No OS (Linux, Unix, BSD, Windows, ect) is secure by default. There are always exploits and holes. Yes MS has a bigger % of security incidents then other OS's because its used more. There are other reasons but take into the consideration that the more people that use software, the more bugs and holes will be found. Im not saying Microsoft is anywhere near secure out of the box as *nix is (because that would ludicrios) but they DO fix thier holes, which is really want counts isnt it?
Feature-completeness
Many of us think about MS OFfice, and Windows to be overloaded with features that we will never use. There is alot of junk there, but at some point someone had asked for that junk. I could see MS giving themselves a pretty high rating for this.
TCO
How easy is it to install and configure a MS server, how many more people are trained to do it? How many more MCSE's are there than Red Hat Certified people? I have seen them use this tatic before; The OS may be free, but whats it costing you to keep a person that is Linux qualified versus the people you already have that are MS qualified.
The whitepaper's that come out of this may be enough for my boss (or his boss) to stick with his windows 2000 running cold fusion when I am just starting to warm his feet in the linux world.
Bash MS all you want but they DO have a way of looking good in the executives eyes. Not to mention there is no centeral place to get TCO information on Linux. Yes, you can go to RedHat.com or any of the other distros and get thier TCO report but all of thier numbers are different. This makes it confusing for bosses everywhere, Microsoft.com is trusted to them, they will see Microsoft.com as the numbers that are most likley true, then where will linux be?
Who is really getting tired of mis-information based mainpage posts on slashdot? I mean, yes, I SHOULD RTFA, but in all honesty do I really need to do it just to make sure the people posting (and the editors...) are on the up and up?
If I am really interested in something, I read the article. But mostly, I just skim the headlines and descriptions, and then go read the comments because they usually add a LOT of interesting information, at a fairly quick read no less. Is it too much to ask that I not be mislead right from the start?
Oh, and no, I did not RTFA.
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
well, as far as the the definition of fud below those three definitions... what a coincidence...geeks.. ya know
Taylor plans to discard the discredit-and-undermine strategy of the past few years in favor of simply hunting down all the Linux activists and exterminating them. Speaking about the change in policy, MS Chairman Bill Gates stated, "Mr. Taylor is going to help Microsoft get back on track to prove the cost-effectiveness and life-enhancing benefits of the Windows operating system. And any allegations that he committed genocide are purely unfounded, un-American, and bankrupt."
I wonder if the Open-Source Testing Lab has paid SCO yet to license the test-copies of Linux they run in the lab?
It strikes me that they may be the only people ever to actually buy these licenses.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I love competition! It keeps everyone playing hard. Without competition, stagnation sets in.
For a particularly dramatic example, look at the pace of advance in web browsers. Back when MS and NS were engaged in the "browser wars" there were new versions every few weeks, and major functions every few months, and every version created interesting new opportunities to explore. Now that IE has "won" I can't even remember when the last useful capability was added to IE. It's like when NS checked out, the IE team shut down... and we all lost the benefit of those two teams' competiton to bring us better browsers.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I saw an email from a big four consultant who is in their Microsoft practice (specializes in Microsoft technology), which stated, "If you currently have or will have applications being built on Linux, to please involve Microsoft so that they can create/show a solution using Microsoft technology."
Of course my freind hasn't submitted any of the applications he is creating. But I imagine they are looking for the Java Petshop type app to compare.
FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) was coined by Gene Amdahl about IBM.
I've got some ideas about TCO of windows vs. Linux, and I'm going to present them as facts.
In a corporate server environment, Linux can provide applications servers, database hosting, Web Server, and File & Print services through a suite of truly state of the art packages (JBoss, MySQL, Apache, Samba) for the cost of hardware and a few highly skilled admin people.
A nearly equiv. MS environment can be built using more hardware, plus lots of software licensing, and moderately skilled admin people.
For a small installation, MS may win on TCO, but as the data center gets larger and larger, it becomes cheaper to hire gifted admins rather than buy more servers/licenses - so the advantage swings to Linux.
At the desktop level, Linux runs well on older hardware. If the "Linux Terminal Server Project" style installation fits a substantial part of the business, the TCO can be staggeringly small. Again, it requires highly skilled admins. Linux can be tough on mobile users, people who constantly need to install differnet software, etc.
MS desktops need to be newer, they each need to be licensed, and since remote administration is not easy, lots of low skill techs are needed to run around helping users.
In the long run, Linux means you need less people but of better quality. In a larger environment that is offset by the reduction in hardware and licensing cost.
Bill Gates's definition of `open' is at least, ahem, interesting... I wonder what the concept of being `open' has to do with the possibility of being used in enterprises. I assume this should be translated as "I hate this `open' software thing because I can't take it and put it into my closed-source project to make a profit from it."
Furthermore, how exactly can are companies like Red Hat exist if open source software can't coexist with job-creating activities?
Microsoft is going to have to start establishing a long term track record of having rational discussions and doing things right. At this point, most people associate Microsoft with that company that wrote the thing they use at work the reboots on them and gets slow. They MIGHT have heard about how they were judged a monopoly. Go a little higher to the technical manager level, and they might know about a few of the highly embarassing things that have happened to Microsoft like the lawsuits or the navy ship getting towed back to shore that was running NT, etc. The prevailing attitude has been:
"We have to like it. It's the only choice".
Or for the more hardcore fans,
"we have to love it and defend it because they have all the money and power and I always side with the winner because that's all I know to do. I am afraid of change".
And even though that gets them what they want in the end, market domination, not many people actually take them seriously. I can remember being at a coffee shop recently and 3 older, more mature looking suits were joking about how Microsoft was getting "more secure" and remarking on a outlook trojan problem they were having currently. Nobody buys it. They just have accepted that they have no choice. That's why a effort like this, no matter how much money they throw behind it, won't convince too many people. It will create some really great boilerplate for the zealots to recite. That's about it. They are going to have to actually make their products better and actually work very hard to clean up their public image before anybody takes anything like this seriously. Just look at the general body of the responses to this article already! If Linus submitted a story saying he was going to do some sort of security audit, he would pretty much universally be taken seriously. You'll never have that with Microsoft given the reputation they have forged for themselves. Windows Server 2003 is a good step in the RIGHT direction for once. It's the smartest thing they've done to DATE to combat Linux in any way. Why? They actually listened to what their customers wanted, and sorta did it instead of doing what THEY deemed right and push it on everyone. It actually looks to be a decent product. But, it doesn't help that Oracle put out their July/August 2003 magazine and there is a HUGE Penguin on the front cover. Pages 46-62 can be summed up like this:
"Get redhat and a dell and oracle9 or you are stupid."
They might as well have said:
"SCO is completely batshit. This is what you want to do now".
And they basically came out and said
"Federal Aviation Air Traffic and Control, as well as these hospitals are now running Oracle on Redhat on HP and Dell servers. We are now meeting the holy grail of reliability with Linux. You can trust it with your life, and the lives of your loved ones".
The message is pretty clear for any CIO or manager type that I've shown this issue to. With the momentum behind Linux at the moment, I don't see Microsoft being able to do much of anything to lower their TCO in time. Every time a CIO, CEO, VP, etc. hears about all the money Amazon have saved, They want some of that luvin.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
write once, run anywhere!
news for nerds, stuff that matters!
Nah, I'd consider IBM a friend. They're making good quality PPC processors (good business move, a happy side-effect these days), They've been helping a lot with Open Source lately (Although they _are_ under scrutiny and will lose a lot of that respect if it turns out they did actually put SCO code in the Linux kernel, because it would mean a lot of necessary cleanup on the part of linux distributers... but SCO has been doing relatively stupid things like violating the GPL since then so I'm willing to go on the side of IBM for now).
A while ago I took a software engineering class by someone who works for IBM and he actually brought up the term FUD and started talking about how you want to avoid it. That amused me to no end.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Double the encryption on your tagline. That way I don't have to uninstall "tr".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
richard feynman mofo biotch
What's to keep them from pulling an Apple Maneuver and making a version of Windows that runs totally on top of a fork (containing serious DRM mods, naturally) of BSD? With Personality Modules that let you run Classic Windows programs (and device drivers? A better WINE than WINE?) as well as proprietary binaries compiled for Linux. If necessary, they could have portions of the OS that are GPL'ed (although I'm sure they want to test whether BSD code is good enough) but these extra PMs technically licensed separately. One of the things the SCO tactics will test is just how 'viral' various licenses are. In the meantime, if they can figure out the technical aspects to making money off Open Source, whichever way the legal winds blow, they'll have a plan in place to exploit it.
So, don't be surprised if a whitepaper comes out talking about certain advantages that certain OS designs have, ultimately translating to:
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
ya, I know it was a troll ...
... the MOUSE DRIVER tries to contact MS.
but what people don't get is it's about freedom.
that's in. period. choice, freedom.
Is it illegal NOT to run ms software yet?
drm/dmca? can you honestly buy a pc without
paying a tax to ms -- even if you don't get
the software?
when you go to ms to give feedback -- you almost
have to put in a product code... why do I have
to fill out a 4 page form just to give feedback?
ever receive one of the embarassing ms fud letters
where ms whines about "freedom to innovate" ?
ms doesn't understand the concept. they are 100%
responsible for stifling innovation across the board.
freedom. I do have the right not to use ms software and not to have it forced on me. of course, with the legislation that has been getting passed -- this right may lot be around for much longer.
riaa? kma. mpaa kma. ms, kma. get real, grow up.
so, I found one product from ms that I actually like! it's those white mice with the red light
-- the optical mouse. I install the software....
why does the software need to know who I am?
it's a MOUSE DRIVER. at least it installed
somewhat easily (click click click, next next next -- anyone actually ever read that bs -- you know it's not binding!)
what happens? 30 minutes to the second later (or so)
zone alarm blocked it.
folks... this is a MOUSE DRIVER... trying to
contact ms. doesn't this worry anyone?
I captured the screen to remind me and anyone
else who thinks ms is innocent.
linux is freedom. ms hates it... seems ms is
anti-american or at least anti-freedom. linux is free and SCO is more ms puppet FUD -- and free linux is a direct threat to MS's extortion.
I don't care if anyone else ever runs linux...
I run freebsd... but I have the choice to run
what works for me.
ms, I will never ever ever ever believe what you
alone say. The truth doesn't need to be
funded or bought.
man, when will microsoft learn...
Wouldn't a fact based approach make more sense if the facts came before the conclusions? Microsoft seems to want to do it the other way around. And isn't that just marketing?
I think the main reason for this is because it already has, it's just that the dopey and the terminally stupid have failed to notice it.
Can I quote you a for-example? This is a bloke called Christopher Dawkins who runs his whole school (Felstead, in Essex) on Linux desktops. Kim Perkins, who runs his entire school (Strathcona, in Melbourne) on Linux fat clients, would say pretty much the same thing. And of course neither Munich or Largo would be of a mind to disagree with them:
Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
MicroSoft test results:
In this test, we are running the latest WindowsXP on this 3Ghz Intel processor with 2GB memory and 200GB disk, and running Linux on a compariable 30Mhz 386SX with 2MB memory and a 200MB disk, and our tests conclusively prove that WindowsXP is almost twice as fast as Linux running equivelent programs!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Weren't you paying attention when they said "It's not a bug, it's a feature"?
Sheesh. With all the MS-bashing, my computer doesn't run long enough, It's not stable, whine whine whine, you'd think someone would have figured out that they WANTED stuff like that in there.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Security,
Linux: Secure from the get go.
Windows: Secure depending on which set of patches you've applied today. And depending on what exploits Microsoft has admitted to and are willing to fix.
Feature Complete
Linux: New things every day and there's diversity so you can get a system styled to you. Though there are still a few sticky issues such as out of the box home usability such as dvd playback and games.
Windows: Asorbs features of other companies and puts them out of business. Takes standards and makes their own standard, deploys it to all their OS systems thus forcing those who learned the standard to use the MS version of the standard and killing off the interoperability.. *cough* HTML *cough*
Even Windows does not have out of the box usability. It cant play DvD's out of the box though MP 9 might do it. Games... well refer to the above paragraph they've taken over the gaming world with DirectX thus stifiling out any hopes of most games working on Mac or Linux OS's
TCO good one.
There are several schools of thought.. however for stock deployments to a business who need these things..
Common Desktop, Mail, Web, and Exchange then your TCO is the cost of what you pay Linux Admins to get it all setup. Plus a per machine cost if you decide on corporate versions which even then are not some crazy license requirements and have good support and updates.. SuSE and RedHat have both made great strides in this sector.. MS on the other hand have techies you have to wade through with the common customer says this, you look in the idiot book and tell customer this.
Microsoft: is quick to point out that it costs more in the long run but that's only when you get into the world of custom application programming which you may or may not have to do with Windows. How many people will finally have to dump legacy 16 bit apps for Windows when Longhorn shows up? Many of those customers will either 1 port to 64bit Linux or 32bit.. or just stick with what they have on Windows and only use the latest OS where it's required. I know many companies who've finally dumped their DOS programs re-written them into Linux compatible code and went that route. Others are still sticking to what they have until it completely falls off teh companies backs.
I'd type more but it's time to toss the pizza into the oven!
By discovering the enemy's dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy's must be divided.
The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points; and his forces being thus distributed in many directions, the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few.
Of course, that all goes out the (cough) window when you plug a modem or network cable into it (-: or a monitor, keyboard or any removable media if you heark back to their C3 compliance for NT 3.5. :-)
People who use glass products shouldn't throw stones.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Perhaps I am old-fashioned (except that I read /.) but I thought that the point of a "study" was to learn something in an objective manner, rather than to find rationalisations that support a pre-determined position.
Ah.
So that would explain BLOBs in their XML, deliberately broken sequencing in their TCP stack and their arbitrary extensions to Kerberos?
Welcome to Planet Earth! We have this company called Microsoft here, and it wears the stamp of its founder's personality.
Their first product (4K ROM BASIC for the Altair) was vapour-ware when it was sold and self-confessedly buggy after that, the bloke who did the hardest work in it isn't even mentioned on their web-site, and they had fixed-size elevators on the sides of their windows for the longest time simply because the Macintosh did. DOS apparently still ain't done because Lotus still runs, their pet platform supports an unmatched collection of over 70,000 different viruses, and whoever they can't bully or trick into submission they buy and trash. HELLO? <waves>
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well, he will have an easy time "showing benefits" - there are none when it comes to security, TCO and stability.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
...it sounds like Microsoft has reopened their Baghdad office, may my stomach roast in hell if they haven't. (-: This office was never closed, never! It is all lies spread by these communistic scum to drag our good name through the mud! :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
know your enemy
C|N>K
This is typical arguing from the conclusions. They already know what they want to find; now it is just a matter of crafting the studies that will find exactly that, not the reality.
But why be serious?
Like being so incredibly complex no one can properly manage permissions, hiding information so no one can actually understand what's going on, and making it nearly impossible to log stuff? Not to mention hiding source code so it can't possibly be audited? Now, that's security for me...
Like there will be a Microsoft Debian distribution with everything and the kitchen sink installable from CDs or network servers, following a coherent policy? Wow... can't wait for that... will take too long!
Like no more incredibly expensive MSCE that cost even more by always choosing the most inefficient solution? No more incredibly complex, expensive licensing that charges double for Terminal Server usage? Suddenly MS SysAdmins will be as efficient as their Unix counterparts? Toto, we're not in Kansas...
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
He is also the person who discovered Amdahl's law
Wow, what are the chances of that?
*ducks*
c-hack.com |
So, since MSFT supports SCO's copyright, will they also be paying $699 for every installation of Linux they install? Maybe not, but watch for this number to appear in their TCO whitepapers...
--
$tar -xvf
The way for Microsoft to compete with Linux is for Microsoft to stop being adversarial toward its customers.
For example, Windows XP has a crippled file system that cannot copy some of its own files. The purpose of the crippling is apparently to prevent copying. So, customers have to use third-party tools that often don't work well to make full backups of the boot partition. Because some people are pirates, Microsoft has chosen to treat every customer as a criminal. This causes customer a lot of lost time. When the backup tools don't work well, it causes customers grief.
The last time I mentioned this particular adversarial behavior toward customers, someone posted a comment saying it was not true, the Windows XP file system CAN copy all of its own files. However, Microsoft employees have often said that it is true. Sometimes Microsoft employees even suggest one of the third-party tools.
Microsoft recently declared that operating systems have a very limited lifetime, and that Windows 98 is dead. Windows 98 is the most commonly used operating system in the world! Now all of those hundreds of millions of people must suffer. Apparently Microsoft wants to force people to upgrade to Windows XP. However, many of those customers have computers that are not powerful enough to support Windows XP. Anything for money is the philosophy at Microsoft, I guess. If Bill Gates wanted to be truly philanthropic, he would make a good operating system and support it well.
These are not isolated circumstances. There are many ways that Microsoft is adversarial toward its customers. Bill Gates is the Chief of Grief.
But hey, Open Source is not always positive toward its customers. I reported a but in Mozilla on a Sunday at 8 AM, and got a message at about 10 AM saying they doubted that the problem was a fault in Mozilla. I asked for a new feature in another program, but the developer said it would have to wait until the next major version. So, open source developers are not angels; some of them are however, about the best people you will find on earth.
How do you prove TCO in a lab? Only microsoft can i guess.
75% of all statistics are made up!
Ohmygosh, Microsoft shocks analysts with a brazen new approach to marketing: "fact based approach", as if honesty was just one of many options...
This is my sig.
They don't have dialogue like that in Attack of the Clones!
You'd think that a gargantuan behemoth like MS would think "who cares about some snivelling little toy OS like Linux". But you'd be wrong. Remember, a young, nobody upstart (MS and DOS) shoved aside the top dog (DR and CP/M) not by being richer, or smarter, or faster, or better, but by being more alert. Gary Kildall was semi-unavailable and/or not that interested in talking with IBM, and Gates and Allen were very available and interested, and here we all are.
MS sees this whole Bazaar/Cathedral thing and it makes sense -- faster updates, more solid code, thousands of eyes, etc. It's a lot of alertness (and is thus a threat), plus it's got that magic word: FREE. But the whole premise of Bill G's life is that software should not be free -- that was his major contribution to the old Homebrew Computer Club, where everyone freely traded/borrowed (??AAs would say "stole") software. Thus, MS's dilemma: how to beat someone at their own game, when their game is completely contrary to all the rules they live by.
For further (this time, actually good) reading about MS and Linux, see this. For another possible reason MS wants to get inside Linux's head, see this -- a.k.a. "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
How about instead of trying to prove why MS is so much better than Linux, why not improve the interoperability tools between the two?
You know why, don't you?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Question for all you non-lawyers out there:
If Microsoft publishes a study that shows a MS product beating out, say a Redhat one, and that makes someone purchase shares of MSFT over RHAD, and then time proves the RH stuff better, MSFT plunges and RHAD goes through the roof, could the FEC fine or otherwise punish them? Not that they _would_, but is that type of scenerio regulated agianst?
Microsoft has but one software stack which can be piled up only one way and involves fitting a nose-ring. Where do you want to go today? Sorry, that location isn't supported. You insensitive clod.
Linux, on the other hand, has been "stacking" software after the fashion Mr Taylor intended to convey all of its busy little life. For a simple but clear model, gawk is stacked on bash is stacked on Linux. When you run a shell-script invoking gawk you have a three-deep software stack. When your PHP-powered web page churns out a Flash movie, that's a four-deep stack (Ming on Php on Apache on Linux). After %s/Linux/${RANDOM}BSD/g it still works jess farn. Big fat whoop-ti-do?
What Taylor will be focussing on will be the "advantages" of being chained to Microsoft's methods, protocols and software. The advantages are huge, it's just the polarity that's wrong: they are advantages for Microsoft, against their customers. That's what it's been all about since Bill published his "Open Letter to Hackers". Just like Linux services, Microsoft Facts(tm) will do less and cost more. Nothing new here... except that customers will be wondering why the Microsoft reps keep calling them "the lovely Miss Connie Swayle".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The problem is the waiting.
The only real reason for founding a for-profit organisation is (big surprise) to make a profit. But that doesn't give the organisation any more right to break or bend laws or social conventions than it does an individual.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Microsoft is doing unpaid QA work on Linux. This is a problem how?
They should set up a clinic for people who start out to use facts and evidence to prove that Windows is better than GNU/Linux. Eventually they're just gonna get fed up and go postal.
`which fortune`
There's a lot that people don't consider.
Microsofts security advantage and Microsofts "feature-completeness"? Is this guy smoking fucking crack? If M$ products are so secure, then why are patches released everyday?
This would almost be interesting... if the salaries of open source programmers didn't add up to a hell of alot more than cumulative salary of microsoft programmers ;) And no, microsoft doesn't employ the best programmers in the world, nor the most well paid.
but around here the prostitues sure as hell ain't free!!
harmonious design
Oh for Christ sakes, all Amdahl's law says is that the maximum parallel speedup is limited by the inherently serial portion of the algorithm. It's friggin obvious, fair play to him for sticking his name on it, but we're not talking e=mc^2 here.
Gah, I gave up on that buggy piece of bloatware years ago. Isn't everyone using qmail?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Has this guy ever studied the scientific method. Oh wait, stupid me. He works for microsoft. They invented their own science.
Expect Microsoft to talk about its features in security and adminsitration of those features. Enterprise administration of logins and permissions is actually much more comprehensive OOTB in Active Directory than Linux. I mean, when you think about the granularity by which you can create groups and move users around, it actually does have a leg up. The thoroughness of these features is something to be worked on, but, as far as I know, Linux does not have these features in any major distribution. Domain administration can be extended right through, seamlessly, to individual resources on the network, including via browser. For most people, revoking a person's login to the 50 different machines that they might have access to in Linux is tedious, to put it mildly. On NT/AD, it's little more than a single checkbox. Expect all of the reports and studies that they do to key in on features and distinguishing characteristics, as opposed to raw superiority. They won't say that they're more stable than Linux, but they'll say something like it's easier to centrally monitor servers via PerfMon.
This guys got his work cut out for him.
Basically, to make the studies and "facts" sound legit, they will throw a bone or two at Linux by saying that it is OK for this purpose or that. HOWEVER, the study will go on to show "facts" how MS and all their offerings provide a better TCO, have substantially greater security (LOL) and integration with MS products. Why bother spending all this money to study how your pruducts compare against another product. I hope NO ONE will actually believe any of the "facts" put out by this "effort". Do you really think MS will hire competant Linux admins? No! They will get some point and click MS Windows admin to try to setup the Linux boxen and network and then show "facts" for just how unstable and unsecure it is. What a load of FUD. I would love to see them get some real Linux admins in there and set those boxen and networks up to be sweet. Also, does anyone think MS would make a press statement that this Linux "Lab" actaully did anything better then any of their products? What a joke.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership. Looks like he can spend alot of time at /.!
takes out small pad of paper.
;)
writes "Martin Taylor -- EoL".
now your on my list.
EoL = "Enemy of Linux"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Clippy's your dad?
Bob's yer uncle!
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Yes, areas in which Microsoft has repeatedly trounced the competition in unbiased tests!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Security and Reliability:
Windows is a single unform program. We call it a "monolithic" but Windows takes it far byond other monolithic systems (Like Linux).
Nearly every program installed becomes part of the operating system in some way. Not an application running under it.
If there is a defect in any peace of code anywhere in any application, driver, enhancment, or even spyware that defect could be triggered at any time and once triggered could easly have a domino effect crashing the entire operating system.
vs Gnu/Linux:
Linux often receaves harsh critisism for being a monolithic kernel and rightly so.
Any code added to Linux could crash Linux and from that the entire operating system.
But only a small portion of code is actually found in Linux much of the operating system is safely located in the GNU pacage and vareous add on libaries.
Those libarys could be defective and can cause some chaos. But will crash only the applications using it and won't cause a domino effect bringing down the entire system (unless it's a libary critical to the task the computer is preforming)
This limits the posabilitys for disaster and makes it easier to track down problems when they do happen.
It's true enough that this is less than perfict and flaws will show up. However it's usually easy to point to a single element in Gnu/Linux and replace it untill a sutable fix is made.
With Windows you could remove and replace defective elements with alternitives however seldom will you actually know what is causing the problem.
In both Linux and Windows software defects account for the vast majority of crashes and security defects.
Keeping those defects limited in the damage they can do is just as important as eliminating them once they are found.
The remainder of problems are due to poorly trainned System Admin.
If you hire admin with proper certification from a certification entity you can trust you have your bases covered.
Microsoft is not one of those entitys. Unfortunatly most Windows admin are trainned by Microsoft and do not have the same background in reliability and security that can be found in admin who are trainned by other agentcys.
Depreceating the Microsoft certification program should improve the quality in available certified Windows admin a great deal as there are a number of high quality certification agentcys out there that do certify Windows admin and test to a greater degree than Microsoft.
Linux vs Windows in software quality:
I would like to take a moment and lament how bad Linux applications really are. Often software is abandoned or not properly documented. The interface is often glitchy and way to often the config needs to be hand optomised just so it can find the libarys already installed.
Some applicatioins are so bad they crash and leave me to erase them from the system.
How often is this? Less often than I make it sound. 1 out of 100 programs have some sereous issues and it's very annoying but I can always find an alternitive.
Exactly the same is true of Windows.
Only the defective app usually brings about the domino effect I mentioned above and has a defective install forcing you to live with traces of the software returnning every now and then like some LSD flashback.
In short Linux and Windows have exactly the same problems for exactly the same reasons when it comes to software quality but Windows applifies those problems from minnor annoyences to critical problems.
Linux vs Windows in communitys:
Not often mentioned is the community asspect.
Microsoft sets up and organises develupers and other asspects considered vital by the industry for interaction at all levels.
The upside is it's all in one place. The down side is you really have very little room to be critical of anyone.
The Linux community is grass roots based and brances off like a tree with many many groups.
Plus there is the GNU community who have no reason to be beholden to the Linux icons as a
I don't actually exist.
Sounds like SCO's version of "Scared Straight".
Smells like a FUD factory to me..
it will be interesting to see.
Facts all come with points of view
Facts won't do what you want them to.
Somehow, I'm fairly confident Microsoft will come up with all the best facts money can buy.
I own loads of linux machines, but ya know what, when I have to write a document, especially one I need to share with others, I use a macintosh with MS office. It works extremely well, is full featured, and is a standard. And since its on a mac I dont have to worry about vbs and outlook viruses. I have never found a replacement remotely close on Linux. What's your solution that non geeks will actually like.
"Hi Martin - please fuck off".
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
Yeah, that's about the size of it.
Maybe not good reasons or reasons anyone here would agreee with, but reasons that will make sense to the IT departments and executives that make up Microsofts customers.
Oh, like the wierd philosopy that all must pay the Microsoft tax or be branded unAmerican? People here want facts, numbers and real performance. Microsoft is not going to get any of that for their stuff from this lab, all it's going to get is fodder for lies. It will help some executives continue to cover their gross mistake of sticking with Windoze. It won't help their bottom line and their companies will continue to spend good money after bad.
Either rebut, or fix, whatever issues this new lab comes up with. Easy, and good for open source too.
You can't fix what is not broken.
This is all perception management. They need to have more of a clue, but the goals remain the same. They will force the results they want and try to make it look reputable. The insults will continue, it's in their blood. Microsft has not learned and never will. The same things that make their software insecure and buggy today will make it insecure and buggy tomorrow.
They keep saying the same old stuff, Microsoft is secure, Microsoft has a lower cost of ownership, Microsoft is more stable now, Best Windows Ever. All they have done is hire someone to help them lie better. No repeatable test will ever show what Microsoft says is true, because none of it ever is. A linux lab is not going to change anything, but the quality of the lie. They will produce literature filled with half truths and nonsense. As it is today, all they have is nonsense and it shows.
Don't think for an instant the name calling will stop, either. It's just going to be pushed onto "independent" PR firms and study groups. Tools like SCO will rage on under M$ funding. Microsoft understands they screwed up by directly insulting their customers and people who were giving superior software away as free. It won't be long before officials there start spewing about "hippies", "cancers" and all that again. They will continue to say such things off record. These are the same folks who think they have a right to read your files and control what software is on your compter, they might believe they have a right to your money and that saying otherwise is unAmerican. The Astroturf will only get worse. It's a trick M$ has know since Yes, the company that screwed DRDOS with bogus error messages is capable of it. Barkto was not an aboration, it was the norm and it's always worse than you think.
Those are the two changes I predict. More and nastier lies.
God, I LOVE competition.
I don't think you or Microsoft know what competition is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah I know they all have exploits, but how many times have 'NONE MS' expoits caused mass disruption on the internet, not including ddos?(virus by web servers that are still going around and attacking IIS.)
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Microsoft may do whatever they wish to attempt to debunk the advantages of open source. However there is one advantage they can never debunk -- the fact that the source is available and MS software's source isn't.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
You are right that browser innovation was driven out of the "mainstream", but go try Mozilla Firebird (make sure to read enough about it to know where to get all the cool extensions and customizations) and you'll see that some people are still working hard on making better browsers (more secure, more standard compliant, more customizable, faster, etc).
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
I actually hope that this guy does a very solid job of using facts to make clear exactly where Windows is better than Linux. I believe that it is true that in some aspects Windows is superior to Linux. By being specific, Taylor will draw a roadmap for Linux hackers to finally best Windows in all ways.
Having an archnemesis detailing your flaws is an incredibly useful position to be in. If Taylor succeeds, Linux will be all the stronger for it.
Go Taylor! Go!
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
The only way anyone will trust the lab's findings ... is if they open source their benchmarking software!
We already know that anything coming out of this closed company, be it software or analyses, is suspect.
Say what we will about Microsoft, at least they have an actual business plan. In contrast to the SCO nonsense we've been wading through, it's nice to see Microsoft accepting Linux as a fact of life and choosing to compete instead of litigate.
-j
You've made a great point there. I wonder if people ever add up the total cost of Microsoft security glitches in terms such as total bandwidth costs used to download said patches, man-hours at large companies to install on compromised systems.
I bet that number is huge...
I am NaN
I can see how you (kylef, thebatlab et al.) would misread and misunderstand the post, but if you bothered to read the articles - the IDG article in particular - you would plainly see they are the sources of the quoted sections.
Choose your edition.
It seems that you're the only one here putting words in someone's mouth.
slashdot.net ... (*ducks*) ;o)
I am NaN
When you know what you want to find you are no longer researching, you are writing marketing paper. Research is when you compare things and try to understand them. This tool will be trying to prove things that everyone knows are bullshit. Microsoft security is not an advantage, it's an oxymoron. TCO and sanity are clearly in free software's favor. Just ask Largo, Florida.
This lab is more like Steve Barkto but announced. What comes out will feed many trolls untill Microsft finally runs out of money to pay them or wins and does not have to. They are not going to win.
I mean, I don't necesarilly trust OSS-sympathetc studies
Why not? What do you think people have to gain by lying about free software? If you don't like the Red Hat thing, go get a Debian version. Hell, you could even download the source and make your own. That's how free software works, why it's so good and why you don't have to lie about it. It's all right there, where anyone can see it and get the same exact results.
Microsoft spending money on bogus Mac switchers and Linux "studdies" is a total wast of investor money. They already know the TCO issues for Microsoft Server platforms vrs free software from running Hotmail. Why don't they just publish the numbers? Because they are every bit as embarassing as the whole failed switch, then the switch that worked and showed them just how much better free software was. Where are the folks who wrote that report? Fired, I'm sure.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Some of us like that edginess, I guess. Keeps you on your toes! BSD is more patient, academic. That's how I've always viewed it.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
about Windows and Linux. I've used them both enough to finally sort of find a happy medium. It helps when you start collecting computers at work or home.
BSD is just starting to inch into the picture, as is OSX. Oh boy, I don't think you can solve a 4 body problem with a closed solution.
damn.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
is not NIS or NIS+, but a well-designed LDAP architecture.
Is it no surprise that ActiveDirectory is based directly on LDAP (and still bears many resemblances protocol-wise?).
ActiveDirectory is LDAP with tight integration into NTLM-style protocols, (useful) management GUIs and tools, and a bit of Microsoft embrance-n-extend.
It is very powerful, but it's not like the same can't already be done with the alternative. Microsoft has made it more accessible (and guaranteed an upgrade path).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Who needs AI when all you want is put out is the same old garbage you put in? Microsoft never developed anything.
Martin is more like Rick Segal all over again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Neither "LOL" nor "ROTFL" can do it any more. Anybody have a new-and-improved acronym along the lines of "YASFOI"* or "MYBFIH"* or whatever...? *(e.g., "You Are So Full Of It..." or "May You Burn Forever In H*ll"? Probably not nearly strong enough, though...) --TE
when the HELL are people going to start pushing Linus, Alan, and BK to embrace things like the MACL patches in SELinux, and ACL support in ext3? I mean, it's not like the material isn't out there to use, and it could really help in unifying that gap, using Samba as a mediator. Samba on Solaris is actually a better deal for interoperating with Windows or replacing servers because of the POSIX ACL support, and built-in LDAP integration (Linux has it too, but it's not pushed in documentation).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
All it takes is a determined hacker to poison your DNS, add bogus upgrades to his machine, and you've been r00ted without any indication. Sure it may be as easy as Windows Update, but don't think that it's a "better" solution. Same old, same old. I guess it all comes down to trust - I trust the Deb guys more than Microsoft, that's for sure!
But do not become complacent!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
and that's why no one will believe them and the whole thing is just another stupid waste of money. If Microsoft wanted to study and learn, that would be great, but they don't. They have already admitted that their goal is to prove TCO, security and feature "advantages". Good software, such as Apache, sells itself. Junk like IIS has to be pimped. Why is it that you think this is a good idea again?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You think wrong. As a seasoned network admin I refuse to allow MS products to be accessed directly from the internet. Ever. This is company security policy. And common sense. Run nmap against any MS product and cringe at the crap open by default. Run nessus against it and watch it die...
They are difficult to administer in any sane manner, lacking just basic command line control and scripting.
And to address your sendmail and BIND security justification - I run postfix and tinyDNS - I have alternatives that I can use, where in MS land I am stuck with (Godhelpus) exchange/outlook/IE.
Think again.
he submitter did not "put words in" anybodies mouth, nor did he indicate any "hatred" of any individual, company or group, nor did he attribute the "cancer" comment to Taylor.
All the submitter did wasmake a comparison between Taylor's stated intentions and Microsoft's previous stance on Linux and Free Software as stated by Microsoft chairman Steve Balmer.
The only reason I'm correcting the previous submitter (and the moderators who think his faulty reasoning "insightful") is that it makes no sense to make accusations of attack by misattribution, even if you have an unreasonable attachment to a particular product, company, or business model.
It is counter productive to legitimate debate and argument to pretend that you understand the rules of debate when you cannot interpet a simple explanatory statement.
Read, L
Because some people here apparently cannot read English, I will quote, verbatim, the relevant section of the IDG article you have just cited:
As you can quite plainly see, the article itself clearly quotes OSI President Eric Raymond as qualifying Microsoft's previous strategy as a FUD campaign (he even uses the "Linux as cancer" metaphor). At NO time in the article does Martin Taylor, the new MS strategist, say these things about previous MS strategy.
Now, contrast the above straight quote from the IDG article with the Slashdot-summary:
As you can clearly see, the submitter begins the statement with the independent clause "Taylor says" followed by the dependent clause "[that] his goal is to...". Everything that follows in the dependent clause has clearly been attributed to something that Taylor actually says in the article. The problem is, he does not say anything about Linux being a cancer, or even acknowledging that this was Microsoft's previous strategy.
I would hope that it is quite clear to English speakers everywhere that I have not misquoted anyone, unlike the submitter of this otherwise interesting article.
I would hope that this was an honest mistake, that the submitter meant to say something like this:
THAT is how the article's summary should have been phrased, assuming the submitter wanted to be accurate.
for OpenOffice (or Star Office, whatever).
It has everything you'd expect, and it handles Word documents particularly well (especially the older versions of the format you may run across).
That was Final Fantasy 6!
For the SUPER FAMICOM!!!!
What, do you think they just jumped from 3 to 7? Give me a break. NO ONE refers to it as 3 anymore. Because there was a 3 back on the Nintendo... not popular, but it exists.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
We are experimenting with Thin Clients at my company. All the salespeople are running off of one server. We get cheap Lindows boxes at around $200, and we spend our cash on things like mice that actually work, and flat screens with high resolution.
So far, we have significantly reduced the workload for us and them. We are also able to control the users and their configurations. They can focus on their job, and we can focus on other IT tasks.
They like it a lot because it feels so much faster than windows did -- and we are using cheaper hardware!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
IBM is doing research. Except they are doing it in the real world, not in some isolated lab. They are going to bring out facts and figures showing real companies saving millions of real dollars because they embraced Linux and Open Source software.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is going to show that Windows 2003 performs slightly better in a controlled environment and under specific conditions.
I see Big Blue as adopting Linux for one reason only -- because if you can't beat 'em, you have to join 'em. Nothing Big Blue can make in house will ever compete with what we can make in our spare time. Period. Microsoft is short-sighted for not jumping on the bandwagon with IBM.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
And thanks for buying into Beta, while the rest of the world went with VHS. Clearly because something is better it will win.
Beter and cheaper, fool. Beta cost more in part because it was encumberd by licensing fees, much like M$ junk.
Like Beta, Microsoft is losing. First they lost developers, and this alone is fatal. Then they lost servers. Now they are losing desktops. As they lose desktops, they lose the ability to bully hardware makers, then they die. There is nothing Microsoft does that free software does not do beter.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Within months of the detailed analysis of Linux security, Linux will face a series of mysteriously buggy virii... which will replace every copy of the GPL with Microsoft's EULA. Then, the terminal goes blank, and says, "w3 0wn j00, l00zer".
I am getting really sick of surveys and studies that start with the answer, then search for the question. How about doing some unbiased research, then after studying the results, announcing the results and maybe inferring a conclusion or two?
I wish the press just wouldn't cover these kinds of publicity stunts. Next week: Gartner advises world to buy Microsoft because of results of microsoft funded, microsoft staffed antiopensource lab research findings...
-- $G
but... I don't think the average Microsoft tester could spot a bug if it was a 8 inches long, and crawling across his face.
I wonder if they will take what they learn and try to use it to improve Windows. You'd have to be completely blind not to see that Windows is seriously lacking in the server OS arena, but it wouldn't cost MS all that much to make at least a nice improvement. Maybe Windows will finally get a decent console shell and a set of utilities, just to name two severely missed features.
Some of us poor bastards out here actually have to program and administer MS OS's for work, and it sure would be nice to see some common features added. I don't give a rats ass what they say about Linux. Just throw me a friggin' bone here!
"will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership." Step four: "Then you win."
Hi, You will be probably surprised by reading this post. My name is Martin Taylor of Microsoft and I decided to join /. to learn more about open source. Also I hope that fellow slashdotter will help me in something really important that may benefit open source. Naimly, my uncle left me $45,000,000.00 (FOURTY FIVE MILLION DOLLAR) in Liberia (I will not mention the name of my uncle but he is pretty important figure overthere). The problem is how to take it from Liberia and I am hoping someone in /. will help me. I will give that person 30% of the sum, 10% percent will be kept for expenses and 60% will be donated to the FSF (free software foundation).
Please keep this in stric confidentiality because if Bill finds out about this post he may fire me.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'
Well, 1 out of 3 ain't good. I mean bad. I mean... nevermind.
- I am made of meat.
SAN FRANCISCO - Having called Linux and open-source software a cancer, un-American and bankrupt, Microsoft Corp. now plans to focus on facts instead of emotions, the company's competitive strategist said last week.
Does this remind anyone of O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone?"
Of course, the cynic in me says that the outward looking will be focused on this particular lab only, and that the rest of the "bang your chest and think your'e the best" will not budge. Time will tell, I hope.
Anonymous, since I long ago forgot my password.
Who could fire you? Would they fire Bill Gates if he bought IBM? All of IBM? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Surely if Microsoft does the research and points out 'facts' this will just give GNU/Linux developers a checklist of things to squash. The arms race that this will produce can only be good for GNU/Linux and ultimately backfire (again) on Microsoft. _Almost_ as good as free kernel patches from Redmond....
How do you reconcile working for Microsoft with your own personal ethical beliefs?
Yep, it's spreading, now even MS has it.
Fuck Martin Taylor, fuck anyone who looks like Martin Taylor!
for their experiments? That would be more honest than the current approach.
But in the mean time,
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If you spend a lot of money on a flat-rate broadband connection, this will be hidden of course.
Yeah, but they stopped making hard drives :-((( IBM made the best hard drives ever... 2 of those quiet babies in my machine right now, and haven't ever gien me problems. I just don't know what I'm gonna do when I need a bigger one, all the other manufacturers are shit! *sob*
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Sammy ! I'm scared !!!
I agree with your thrust - that being tested in the hot forge of competition will make it real.
However - one of the current issues that we will also have to work out is how to get our answers out into the public conscience after we have 'fixed' the problem that the comparisons have revealed.
Folks may simply remember the 'MS Lab points out critical flaw in Linux architecture' story that splashes across zdnet et al. Sure we may fix it but how will get get that message across? And not have it overwritten by yet another message from the 'lab'?
sounds like bill finally found a good mouthpiece for M$
;P)
(the penguins are not in baghdad
...really? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Will this be shortened to the Microsoft-LOST Lab? ;-)
Hmm...so $50 for a commercial copy of Linux. Should make his program pretty cheap, 'cause it'll stop there.
"Ballmer said Windows costs less, runs faster and is more secure than Linux."
Is this true ? because if it is true, im formatting my SMP Gentoo build, and ordering Windows.
If it's not true, well, then I am going to sue them under the trade descriptions act.
I have no sig, i am immortal
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
On the About page of the Gentoo site, Larry the Cow reveals his frustrations with other Linux distros. Hmm, this reminds me of the Gateway commercials running a little while ago where Ted Wiatt talks to a Holstein heifer with a male voice.
I dunno, but I gotta wonder if these are examples indicative of a common psycho-sexual trend among computer-using bovines ...
This is the first time I'd mark the original article as a Troll.
Is that MS will do a good bit of real research on where Linux is better than Windows, then they will write two papers: An internal paper to help their people write competitive software targeting Linux's strengths, and a BS paper they show everyone else that is simply the FUD rehashed.
The same was done with the HOtmail migration, why would this be any different?
That's http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01536.h tml
You left off the "l" at the end (and now slashcode is inserting a space in mine, so it won't be completely correct either).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
"Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership."
This basically means they are using Linux to find ideas on how to make Windows better.
Is that for all "intensive purposes?"
*ducks* : )
I was looking at ways to administer Windows Update centrally for all of the desktop machines of a division of a medium-sized research university (a few dozen machines, maybe, but spread out inconveniently). The best I could come up with (without regularly disturbing people trying to work) was telling Windows to automatically install updates when folks were usually at lunch. Maybe there are commercial products that are more flexible/powerful; if someone can point one out to me (that we can afford in times of severe Maryland budget cuts), I'd be interested.
But you can do almost anything you want to update Linux systems, for free. Don't want to apply packages until you've tested them? Understandable; you can set up a central APT repository (for Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, or Conectiva) and have your machines automatically update from packages you've placed there post-testing. You can even sidestep the whole issue and update the files themselves without actually using the package manager, by using rsync-over-ssh or similar (there's a program to do this better, and it isn't rdist, but the name escapes me at the moment).
I don't know of a way to remotely update a Windows system manually without disturbing whatever the user is doing. Of course, updating X, the kernel, etc. would require eventually disrupting their work, but you can restart the machine when it's convenient for them.
Also, keep in mind that Windows Update is only free after you have purchased Windows, and wasn't Microsoft hinting about charging for some updates?
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
It is taking a little longer than expected, but the outcome will be the same.
Why yes, by George! You may be right! Why in 10 or 15 years, the way technology marches on, some smart geek will almost certainly come up with another killer Open Source OS, and say goodby to that old dino, Linux!
So he discovered a law *AND* he's got a great looking cousin who is queen of some planet far far away...
Because Linux is the one getting the popular press, running entire city governments and schools, and getting the attention of your boss. Your _average_ boss might ask you about Linux, but you will have to ask them about BSD.
Besides, if they were going to copy features from open source operating systems, I don't think it would be feasible to directly use code on the kernel level. They'd have to reimplement the features anyway, so who cares about the license (as long as none of their developers are exposed to the code)? The same thing could work on the application level, or they could find an application under a BSD-style license.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
He's certainly not going to win a Pullet Surprise like that.
Would you care to follow that up with some facts, or at least an article?
No self-defecating Asian pics, please.
kylef:
Because some people here apparently cannot read English, I will quote, verbatim, the relevant section of the IDG article, which is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the story:
As you can quite plainly see, the section quoted does NOT include any reference to Eric Raymond's comments - his remarks are buried at the bottom of the article - but is from the text of the first paragraph of the IDG story.
One should also note that the use of quotation marks usually denotes that the words contained therein do not belong to the author of the text currently being read. For a site where copyright and intellectual property issues are often discussed, it seems only proper that I should appropriately acknowledge the words of other authors in the customary manner.
I would hope that it is quite clear to English readers everywhere that I have not misquoted or misattributed comments to anyone, unlike the commentator above. As I have previously written, I can see how one would misread or misunderstand the post but, if one bothers to read the articles, one would plainly see that those articles are the sources of all quoted passages.
A number of people have written that they clearly understand the comments were not attributed to Taylor, so it is puzzling why some have such difficulty with the type of basic reading comprehension that is taught in elementary schools. This confusion would surely be resolved if the confused parties would simply read the articles.
I would hope that this was an honest mistake, that the commentator is not intentionally being utterly obtuse.
I would suggest that, since he seems to care so much about the quality of Slashdot, he should spend more time submitting posts and interesting articles instead of criticizing others for his own misreading of conspicuously evident statements and quotations.
THAT should be how he spends his time - a far more effective and productive use of time - assuming the commentator wants to be regarded as something other than Slashdot's self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual grammar police.
You know, I wasn't going to reply to this because the parent's reply to my comment is obviously a flame.
However, I would just like to take a few seconds to point out the classic flaming elements of the post for the audience's edification:
Well, that concludes our lesson dissecting a flame today. Class dismissed!
'Interesting new possibilities'. From a web designer's point of view, would that be interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse? ;-)
I found one of those in my chester drawers the other day!
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
... we did master-master replication with Open LDAP (with simple patch) back in 00.
feature-completeness
security? ya, right...
cost to operate? i believe the debian logo says something like "i've better things to do than fix systems", i just do'nt hear that from the m$ camp...
BUT! i truly would love to see a table of m$ products compared to similar linux products.
This faggit goes around SFO and does those peepholes in bathrooms but doesnt tell anyone he is fucking an AIDS infected shithead. He is an AIDS spreading freak.