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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
CLIPPY: There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. You do not yet
realize your importance. You have only begun to discover you power.
Join me and I will complete your training. With our combined strength,
we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
Martin Taylor: I'll never join you!
CLIPPY: If you only knew the power of the dark side. Obi-Wan never told
you what happened to your father.
Martin Taylor: He told me enough! He told me you killed him.
CLIPPY: No. I am your father.
Martin Taylor: No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!
CLIPPY: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
Martin Taylor: No! No! No!
He is also the person who discovered Amdahl's law
Wow, what are the chances of that?
*ducks*
c-hack.com |