Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Proclaims Death of Free Software Model
geoff313 writes "
As previously mentioned here,
Microsoft's new wave of FUD has begun to arrive. This time it is
courtesy of Bradley Tipp, Microsoft's UK national systems engineer, who
spoke at the Microsoft IT Forum in Copenhagen. In this article
from ZDNet UK, he is quoted as saying that 'Linux is great' and 'there
are a lot of things we should learn from open source' but then is quick
to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said
they're using [open source] because it's better.' Another Microsoft employee was quoted as
saying 'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and
we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.' I for one am happy to see that they are taking their new interest in security seriously, and I'm
sure you all are too. Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red
Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's
aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software,
but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model. Does anyone
besides Microsoft see these events as the end of Free software?" I use Free software because it's better; they just didn't ask.
I'll be honest. I don't use free software because it's "better". I use free software mostly because it's free (as in "free beer"). I appreciate that so many people donate their time and effort in order to create tools and applications that anyone can use without paying an arm and a leg.
I'm not a corporation, and I can't afford thousands of dollars in license fees to run a web server + mail server + database server for my personal use at home.
-- Erv Walter
There's an easy answer to that -- don't let them know how to get to root. Most of the desktop utilities simply pop-up a password box in this situation. Don't teach the idiots that "root" is a user name, nor about the "su" command, and you will not have this problem.
Or, make it so you have to have a command line override (documented only in the man page) in order to start X as root. The only people who will read the man page are those capable of handling it - a very self-discriminating setup.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
I use OSS because it's...
Free
Better
Faster
More secure
Faster bug fixes
Fewer bugs (on mature code)
More flexable (configurable)
No? hidden backdoors (remember the NSA backdoor)
Most X window managers support mutipal desktops (Windblows doesn't)
You get a REAL command line!
And finally, CHOICE!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Really? Then why can I download Red Hat AS, ES, or WS and install them on any of the computers I own for free
Actually, no, you can't download binaries for AS, ES or WS. (Sources, yes. Binaries, no -- so the process is more like "download onto a separate computer, recompile and install" -- a rather different thing from "download and install").
In my company there is not a single machine that runs Microsoft because it is expensive to run software that is full of security holes!!
Linux, Apache and Postgres is stable and secure thank you very much.
Umm... surely Linux being an OS developed by many people with no pre-defined direction can have the target of replacing windows XP, even if only one developer wants it (and I suspect there is one somewhere out there!). It may not get there any time soon, but at least it will be an aim.
Newer kernel branches have support for reading (in the 2.4 branch) and writing (in the 2.6 branch) NTFS partitions.
If you need NTFS write support and don't want to run a beta kernel(understandable), 2.6-final should be out by the end of the year.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
Don't be so inflexible. In the article there is this string:
That magpie attitude, according to Microsoft, is mutual. Red Hat's decision to end support for its free software and the Novell-SuSE link-up have put the last nail in the coffin of the free-software model, the Redmond behemoth believes -- even going so far as to speculate that the move from free to paid-for open-source software is a validation of Microsoft's way of doing business and the only way the open-source movement can survive.
So they paraphrased. Maybe Microsoft said that, maybe they didn't, but the article basically did.
for a Microsoft customer, Windows software is better
That's just not true. I'm a Microsoft customer, and granted, some of their products are a reasonable choice. But such a blanket statement is just absurd and diminishes Microsoft's credibility.
Microsoft says:
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Incorrect and absolutely false. At the past three companies I've worked with, I've met with regional Microsoft reps and discussed this very topic in "what will it take to switch everything to Microsoft" pitches. Microsoft would typically go application by application across the enterprise to lock up the business.
Imagine my disdain when they proposed switching our international carrier's DNS servers to NT DNS (from BIND, along with our mediation software, etc.). Wonder if anyone can help Microsoft understand what a root nameserver is...
Amazing, that open source could be superior.
PR handlers will advise that you're only making the situation worse when the market has consolidated in an attitude to which you're opposed. Better to recognize the landscape has changed and reformulate your strategy. Of course, failure is always a choice too.
*scoove*
Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I'm not poorly informed either. I ran Linux as my primary operating system for several years, then switched back to Windows 2000. I have a Linux box and a Windows box at work and am intimately familiar with both.
The reason why it has been perfect for your needs is that it doesn't appear that you do that much with it. Word processing isn't an extraordinarily difficult task. There are many other things, however, that the average desktop user uses their system for, such as web browsing, email, and music. There are equivalent programs to do this things in Linux, but what happens when you want to view a quicktime video? Or an AVI? Or watch a DVD? Or read an Excel document? Or...
Yes, these tools exist, but it takes a combination of the knowledge of their existance and the know-how to install and configure them in order to use them. This is beyond the average user. Frankly, I found it tedious to have to go through a drawn out setup procedure every time I wanted to get something to work in Linux that just worked in Windows.
Linux is prefectly suitable for the hobbyist, but is not anywhere near the stage of being ready for the average desktop user.
"DOS is DEAD"
You should try telling that to the FreeDOS folk after making the very best implementation of DOS ever - bar none. It's still very much alive, kicking and growing.
In comparison, Microsoft's DOS 6.22 (the last commercial stand-alone release) has been a rotting zombie for seven years now. The result? Microsoft lost the DOS wars.
Think about it. Microsoft destroyed DR-DOS, claiming victory with MS-DOS. Unfortunately it had no staying power. Windows became the future and MS moved on, abandoning MS-DOS. Microsoft won the DOS battle in terms of most money made, but it lost the long-term war to FreeDOS.
Put it this way: Can you buy a fresh copy of MS-DOS 6.22? No. You can't. But you can get FreeDOS.
Did you actually read the article?