Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux
prostoalex writes "Martin Taylor, general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, was interviewed by CRN magazine on Linux, open source development, and Microsoft's official stand on it."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
what's next? apple gets sued for music copyright infringement? oh wait...
...but I bet he's against it
Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.
Shouldn't there be a "doesn't" in there somewhere, or is he arguing FOR open source?
No troll. Just curious. Anyone have pricing info?
We read about Linux on a website called 'Slashdot' where they've been predicting world domination every year for the past 6-7 years, and frankly, we were quite frightened. We finally got around to installing it to see what all the fuss was about, and maybe figure out why they make that prediction every year, and well, we're not really worried any more.
Love, Microsoft.
"We think that Linux sucks for really important stuff and most less important stuff. Windows (TM) is secure *snicker*, and stable *snicker*, and cheap *snicker*. Linux is much less cheaper than Windows (TM) is. Thank you for your time."
Oh wait, wrong article, sorry.
One bad monkey spoils the whole barrel.
My eyes glazed over 1/3 of the way through that marketing drek. It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This shit's almost as bad as legalese.
Pierre
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.
'Do you have a pricing problem with Windows and Office on the desktop?'
I most certainly do! What home user actually knows the price of Windows/Office and does NOT have a problem with purchasing software at that price?
--
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Actually it is more like you (Micrsoft) have a McDonald's No. 5 supersize, and your buddy (Linux) is offering for you to come over to cook barbecued steaks!
"CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send? "
Hmm... I think the market is saying, take advantage of your monopoly while you still can. Bundle it with every computer and charge a shit load while MS still can.
So right away he takes a jab at Linux by comparing it to a Diet Coke, while comparing Windows to the full meal.
In credible. Big balls or no brains, you decide.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I think it's more of allowing anything with a file extention of
Does that sound like a workable solution to your problem Bill?
By Michael Vizard, CRN
10:52 AM EST Tues., Feb. 24, 2004
As general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, Martin Taylor leads the software company's charge to contain and eventually eliminate open-source technology. Needless to say, that means Taylor does not shy away from controversy. In an interview with CRN Editor In Chief Michael Vizard, Taylor discusses the lessons Microsoft is learning from customer interest in open source and how the company may ultimately respond with more modular, component-based server offerings that would allow it create a more competitive solution in any given market.
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
From that perspective, there are a couple of interesting phenomena happening. As companies try to monetize Linux--i.e. Red Hat--the Red Hat enterprise server and their advanced server costs as much or more than Windows server, if you want it to be supported with security and everything else. If you model our security and our support and everything else, they actually cost more. It's not so much Linux monolithic vs. Microsoft. But it's Novell SUSE with one price point, one set of functionality; Red Hat enterprise server with one price point, one set of functionality; and Windows server. When you understand what you are paying for and where, then you see the relative price pressures come into play.
CRN: Sounds like there is a bit of soul searching going on. Where does all of this lead Microsoft?
TAYLOR: Here's the fundamental challenge, and I think we've solved it in one area. First, you have to segment the market into small, medium and large. Our [Windows] Small Business Server is the right product for the small-business market in the United States. Small-business customers only want one server, maybe two, and they might want a separate firewall. They don't want 10 servers all doing separate, desegregated workloads. Small Business Server was the first time that we really kind of architected from the ground up for the small-business environment. Then you have large enterprises on the other end. There are probably about 13 different server workloads that we have to think about there. The issue is, how do we offer a level of componentization to do those workloads and do it in a way that we don't lose the ability to make it easy, simple to manage and, when customers want to combine the workloads, not require them to combine two completely different products? You then have this [midsize]-business space that says maybe it's not one server, maybe it's not 13 and maybe it's four, where you have some app-type of server, some type of basic collaboration server. So that's the hard problem.
CRN: To make that work, you're then going to need some sort of built-in, federated intelligence that automatically discovers who's running what, when and where.
TAYLOR: Yes. It's not just as easy as taking out the existing HTTP server in Windows server and making it a separate product tomorrow. It is not that simple. It's bigger than, 'Do you have a pricing problem with Windows server?' quite honestly. Or for that matter, 'Do you have a pricing problem with Windows and Office on the desktop?' This is where you see an interesting dynamic playing out that asks what do people want to pay for, how d
from the article...
I'm not [making] a disparaging comment on the open-source community. I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality. Let's just say that. That said, it's something that we continue to look at to see at what level and how do we open it up and share.
So, this means they are thinking of giving more people access to the code? It wouldn't be a *major* problem for them - no one in their right mind would recompile to 'Jacks Desktop v1.0' and try and sell it. The laywers would destroy them.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Ah crap... when I read his McDonald's analogy I just blew mountain dew all over my "diet coke" workstation.
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Linux isn't about offering less for cheaper, it's about doing things differently. In the above metaphor, Windows XX is a super-size BigMac (and it tastes just as gross and makes you just as sick in the stomach), the 99c Diet Coke is the Windows 'light' for Thailand, MacOS-X is a slightly tastier and less ubiquitous In-n-Out burger, and Linux/BSDs/... are a good solid helping of whatever healthy food you can find in good restaurants, predominantly outside the US, prepared by actual cooks and served by actual servers, who all prefer seeing you enjoy your meal than make you pay by the half-gram of beef patty present in the burger.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Microsoft is better for Joe Small Business Owner who knows about as much about computers as he does marketing his crappy product from his parents' basement. Who cares if his system is taken down every 10 minutes? 3 people a year buy his crap.
We're not as good as Linux for bigger businesses because they can afford to hire someone who might actually know something about how to use Linux, and therefore utilize its power. After all, it's more secure and more versatile, and you can develop your own applications for it.
Linux is actually more expensive if you choose to buy one of the commercial server distributions like RedHat or SuSE. We're just going to pretend that someone can easily get another distribution OR this same one for free off the Internet.
Linux support is harder to come by than Microsoft support! Never mind that the costs between getting a certified Linux technician and an MCSE are the same -- you can call Computer Bob who hangs out down at the local bar and have him service your Windows computer because he picked up 2000 Server for Dummies at Barnes and Noble the other day.
Ad nauseam.
IAALS.
#5 combo vs. Diet Coke?!? Worst...analogy...EVER.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
CRN: Where do you see Linux being successful today?
TAYLOR: Definitely on the edge. You're just seeing edge services continue, such as firewall, appliances and those types of devices. Obviously, Unix migrations are happening. That's where, primarily, custom applications that people have written in-house are being moved over to Linux.
Obviously Microsoft acknowledges the power and security of Linux in 'edge services' in appliances.
So why is Microsoft making crap versions of Windows like Tablet edition and Media Center edition for these 'custom applications' already shown to be penetrated by the much-more-suited-to-it Linux?
--
There's another, less interesting, article with the headline:
"Microsoft's Linux Strategist Speaks on Platform"
Trust me, it's a really boring story.
First, I'm not surprised that they position themselves not against the tech, but against SUSE and RH as licensed support vendors. However, it seems to immediately miss the concept that a growing number of home users are exploring Linux as a cheaper alternative to an email/letter writing/game appliance.
As to those "edge servers" that Linux is capturing, he may want to look at where all the tech logic is flowing: "edge servers". If web services and other distributed apps continue to grow for enterprise solutions, Linux is going to house most of those according to his logic. Just by identifying it doesn't seem to answer the issue of "what is your strategy?".
The whole price point comment seems too fluffy. Of course you have to look at what you're doing! Haven't you made up *any* clear strategy yet? If he'd said "we're going to show that Windows can scale, can be as secure and reliable, and that the value-added product it competitave with the leading vendors" I'd appreciate the interview. But he didn't.
"We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents"
Has martin lost his mind. Sure i would liken Microsoft to McDonald, in that they dupe their customers in feeling that food (Windows) is healthy (secure), but do they honestly think they offer more to a server platform than Linux does. No, it ends up costing you more, support, additional software etc. I can get my BSD boxes to do all that a doze box can and it costs me hardly anything bar hardware changes. There are three admins that maintain it as it is up 24/7 and all are experienced professionals, we dont need no team of MS monkeys to tell us, "well we will help you, but your gonna be charged". The only thing we require is to be paid and to not have to deal with the dramas that come from the myriad of problems ive faced with Windows machines
We need not sell a better product. We just have to monkey around a bit to keep non-believers (Closed Source Junkies) hooked.
Its a marketting game and nothing to do with superior technology. </Paraphrase>
Linux, in the end, will end up being the superior product. Why? Cause we'll make it so.
Some pretty good tough questions, with some not so direct answers. But still peculiar in the ways noted above. I'm surprised he gave that interview to begin with.
everything in moderation
I think you're right in that he's saying that Windows offers a full meal in that Windows includes a number of services. This isn't to say that Linux doesn't offer a lot of services, though. It seems like he's saying that Linux is more flexible in what they're offering so you can get JUST a web server with no other software installed if you want. It's more difficult to break down the Windows services to get just what you want and only have to pay for what you want. It seems like his question is asking "Do we lower the price of the whole meal (ALL of the services) or go to an a la carte menu?"
You don't really do it for free. It takes your time to recompile your kernal if you don't want a swiss-army-knife operating system like Windows. There's free software for pretty much each of the apps you've described, with varying capability and premium software you can buy, too, for each.
The rock bottom difference for me between the two is with Linux I know what I have and can see it all. With Windows I have to have faith in them, because it's a black box.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's interesting that Mr. Taylor should say this, because for many people, this is entirely the point (beyond the bug issue).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The biggest laugh of this whole article for me was that he seems to equate security as having an integrated firewall:
"CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows?
TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in."
Sorry Mr. Taylor, but a firewall is NOT what the "security concerns" with Windows are. A firewall is a PIECE of a network security solution, but OS security has to be there first. A firewall won't do you any good if your web server is vulnerable to a trivial exploit.
I guess we can put this guy's comment to the test when XP SP2 ships with the firewall turned on by default. We'll see if the overall security of Windows increases dramatically just because of a firewall. I'm not holding my breath.
That article needs more cowbell!
OK, but I highly doubt that Linux was actually *useable* before '98 or so.
The goal of "the company" is to increase shareholder value. Microsoft has to persue avenues that lead to more profits. For the longest time one of the biggest issues with purchasing a Windows server OS was that it couldn't be deployed to handle a single task at mass scale. But, to MS's credit, those same Windows servers - well, the Windows 2000 kernel ones - do pretty at being all-in-one servers for small environments. Anyway, it's been a heck of a lot better - from a cost/benefit standpoint - to put up a dedicated *nix server when you need one task done as consistently as possible.
Server administration isn't even close to my full-time job, but I can recall many occassions when I've found myself stopping services on a Windows server that had no business running those services in the first place. "SMTP spending resources on the file server? WHY?!?"
I think the guy makes some good points. I was even thinking that it was one of the best-sounding MS interviews I'd read in a while until he said that Linux was definitely being used in the "fringe".
DISCLAIMER: I don't use Linux in my professional day-to-day work. I rarely touch a Linux box. Or any *nix box. But when a programmer/IT buddy of mine told me he had converted ALL his company's servers AND desktops to Linux without much fuss, I realized that this is not just for the fringe. MS may not be in total denial, but they're still in denial.
My sigs always suck.
oh oops
s/linux/BSD/d
A blog about stuff.
It sounds like MS is really looking into linux. Obiously the PR guy doesn't sound scared, but I bet they are getting a little nervous. I would not doubt that they may market a new type of server system that similiar to linux if linux continues to gain too much ground.
"Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
Or maybe Windows is the heart attack and Linux the begining of a healthy new lifestyle.
;-)
Pfft. Those PR guys.
Quack, quack.
Anyway, Iw ould like to hear waht you think of the tone of this article
Sigs are dangerous coy things
From the article:
Linux is definitely not a Diet Coke. It's more like a grand self-serve buffet, with food from all over the world, for just $0.50 or even less if you do your own cooking.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Well, it's not exactly scientific, but...
$ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | uniq | wc
254 254 5702
Does that qualify as an order-of-magnitude error?
TAYLOR: And the other place we see it is high-performance computing, scientific computing clusters that have lots and lots of servers.
Sounds a lot to me like Microsoft is saying that the Windows server is only directed small/medium businesses and not towards a large business with a lot of servers. Admitting defeat a little early, eh?
TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review.
Wouldn't you think that there are more "qualified" coders in the world total than there are working at Microsoft? Oh sure, Microsoft probably has a great number of programmers that are "highly-qualified" but does that mean they are the only ones in the world with enough experience to truly understand code review? Of course not. I bet if you took all of the most experienced coders from both sides and added them up, you'd see how much bigger the world is than Microsoft.
TAYLOR: As a channel partner, you've got to have two questions: Do you ride Microsoft's R&D wave, or do you ride this Red Hat Linux wave, knowing there's going to be some potential conflict with a vendor?
At least if I ride the Red Hat Linux wave, I won't fall off.
TAYLOR: IBM and Novell have made acquisitions to try and get to an integrated platform that provides a level of functionality.
And they have just that.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Mr. Taylor, does this statement mean that spending more on a Microsoft product doesn't mean I am getting the best thing out there?
Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.
Oh, thanks for pointing this out to us as well.
I tried babelfish but it made no difference. Is there a web site that will translate that interview into English - or any known human laguage?
They feel threatened by that Linux is free as in beer. So they talk about TCO. And burger meals. And how you can segment the market. The marketeers at MS tries all the tricks a marketeer knows about.
They totally miss "free as in freedom". The FOSS development model is commoditizing software faster than MS can develop itself out of. And gives the control back to the users. That's why Linux will win.
)9TSS
Whether it chooses to do so more often is an open question, but it's refreshing to see a Microsoft exec speaking non-disparagingly about the competition.
Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.
It certainly doesn't guarantee higher quality software, but on the other hand if you have a relatively static pool of programmers that consistently make software of a particular grade chances are that you will stay that way. The advantage of having a large community of programmers is that it gives rise to the opportunity for various insight to be made on the code. Furthermore, it allows for creative thinking and the ability to contribute to other people's current and future work.
He seems to think there is only one source of Linux, Red Hat, and continually compares Windows to it. Even Linux users are questioning some of Red Hat's latest moves, and there are many who believe SUSE is closest to a viable large user base desktop Linux distro.
The guy keeps talking about Red Hat like they're the only player.
You have to wonder if M$FT is really worried about Red Hat in particular. Maybe they see a small company about ready to experience some serious growth?
wbs.
Huh?
So if i find a bug in my number 5 combo (that you can't seperate) The gen. Public never know about it till 6 months later.... EVEN IF ITS A BIG ASS BUG???
well... ill just take my diet coke (suger water) & look for bugs myself before i touch..or drink...
Cool Linux
A Linux News Site
TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review. I'm not [making] a disparaging comment on the open-source community. I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality.
That's so true: on my project the number of bogus comments I get from "programmers" out there is unbelievable. Give me one good, dedicated engineer, over a bazaar full of mediocre software engineers any day.
John.
I don't know why I read this drek, because I could have known he would fling fud and mud like his job depends on it.
compares retail(?) windows with enterprise linux support contacts, tries to establish that linux has less offerings as reason for costing less (no it is because 'Linux' does not need no lizzard tongue PR drones like this one) etc etc.
This quote:" Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality."
Is that some error by the journalist or did he really say that? It is right after some dumb statment saying that just because thousands of people look at the source this will not lead to less bugs because those people are -supposedly- not qualified. Clearly this guy is trying to hide the delphi-effect (crowds of people are smarter than the average of the people they are made up of).
Anyway, time to ignore MS news even more.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
How many guys are working on the MS kernels that come out every 3 - 5 years? I would bet it's less than the 14 - 25 guys who submit code for linux.
...it is certainly a more tepid, sterile business jargon laden response. Essentially however, it regurgitates what has been the essential MS party line since they came to the realization that it may actually be a credible threat (yeah i know, real shocker there).
I can't really find any substantive material here. If anything, it's more offensive because it is so utterly devoid of anything that hasn't been rufuted already. Quotes like "We definitely see more conversations happening about Linux on the desktop in public-sector scenarios, primarily in emerging markets." mean nothing..."emerging markets" basically means all the markets MS heretofore ignored and doesn't want OSS establishing anymore beach-heads.
"By design, we've always moved out service and support from the core part of our pricing because we invest in the channel quite heavily. Our value-add is really in the R&D in the technology." basically means (1) we don't give 2 squirts of piss about service and support because it is a cash drain and we are so entrenched we haven't tpically had to wroory about because consumers had fuck all for choice, and (b) where R&D = taking ideas others develop and putting it through the Redmond filter. MS hasn't done anything spectacular in R&D since Myrvhold left/was ousted.
1. Linux is the equivalent of a diet coke in the complete meal that is offered by Microsoft.
:D)
:D).
:D
2. Free software is more expensive than software with a price tag. (New MS R&D shows 0.99$ > 2.99$. Oh well
3. To make a modular design, without making the system almost impossible for (professional) sysadmins to mangage, is apperently a very hard problem.
4. Linux has a bit of traction because of the lack of a integrated firewall in windows(in related news...)
5. Almost all people reading the open sourced code, doesn't really understand it. On a global scale, probertly no more of 100 can actually code.
6. Closed R&D work is more likely to still be around in 10 years time(ROFL, a lot
note to self.. never visit CRN again
Double Quarter Pounder(R) with Cheese: 770 calories, 47g of fat, 20g saturated fat.
Super size french fries: 610 calories, 29g of fat.
Diet coke: 0 calories, 0g of fat.
Hey didn't he just prove that windows is bloated?
I spoke with an MS rep recently and he admitted that MS is scared that Linux would kick their ass. Maybe not at this time, (he mentioned it excels at servers, but went into a TCO talk then). Don't think that MS is impervious to Linux, they respect it a lot more than it looks like they do -- thats why they are taking their time with Longhorn. Perhaps this will quench some of the seething animosity that seems to fuel the Linux crowd.
Perfect analogy. While fat, dumb and frustrated is bitching and moaning about cardboard burgers, the rest of us are enjoying a home made roast, potatoes and trimmings for less money and trouble.
I like this Taylor clown. He makes me laugh, but I don't want any of his greasy, downer dairy cow burgers software.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The advertisement, er, interview, in a nutshell:
1. Linux is "Diet Coke" while Windows is a #5 value meal.
2. Linux is just used at the "edges", you know, firewalls, routers, that sort of mickey mouse stuff. Yeah, we've thought about making some Windows things do that [ed note: ROFL]
3. A bunch of people looking at your code doesn't help, I mean, are they high-quality?
4. ISV's are ignoring Linux.
5. Linux is hard. There's a lot of complexity in supporting it.
I'm left wondering if the Microsoft folks are really as self-deluded as this article would lead me to believe, or if they're just trying to downplay Linux as "no big deal".
Keep in mind the source: CRN. They have foisted their paper on me (I specifically told the telemarketer "I don't want it" and they started sending it, anyway) so I have a chance to thumb through it occassionally. I wish I had the issue in front of me, but last fall they had a survey about Linux, and the number of people in their interview who felt Linux was usable today and in 6 months was maybe half of the industry average.
Their readership are a bunch of older ISV types who probably just changed to Windows from SCO Unix a couple of years ago, and they're going to be very nervous about changing to Linux. My feeling is that the whole point of this interview is to help convince those types that Linux is too difficult for them, and it's no big deal anyway so might as well ignore it.
Do you have ESP?
RHEL Workstation = $25
RHEL Advanced Server = $50
And as everyone knows by now they also offer Fedora for Free. Another interesting alternative is Whitebox linux which is based on the RHEL source.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I can't wait until the nukes start to fall... If Bill Gates survives, I'll hunt him down like an animal and burn him alive.
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
Yes, just ask Netscape, Real, ProComm, the disk compression people, and all those other Microsoft partners who developed their technology on Windows. They are doing so very well now that MS integrated their successful product into the operating system and gave it away for "free" (except the OS costs more now.)
If I'm developing something, well, I'd pick Linux over Windows as insurance against the future, certainly not the other way around.
Dean G.
Hahahhahaha. Best reply so far.
$ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | sort | uniq | wc
117 117 2636
Still.
Please, leave the FUD to us at Marketing, sir. We can do that much better. What if someone asked you to specify in what ways the Linux desktop is as vulnerable as the Windows desktop?
So In order to parse this jibberish I have to assume that Windows in the full meal, supersized with bloated code. This "full meal" only comes in one flavor, and no special orders are taken.
Linux is like ordering your items the way you want them from a full menu of items, even diet, if slim and efficient is your thing.
I get confused when they compare themselves to McDonalds though . . . McD can and will sell me the diet coke I want seperate from the meal. . . but Windows can't be broken apart because a broken window is useless ? Can anybody make sense out of this crap ?
I think I just want the diet coke.
--Tsiangkun
I only need one mouse button to open the terminal.
I wonder why MS doesn't mention an official stand on *BSD?
Perhaps because *BSD is dying?
A good part of what is driving customers to Linux is the corporate behaviour of Microsoft itself (not just problems with security and pricing -- albeit these aren't helping). It you try to trap your customers, railroad your competition, and blackmail your distributors -- they will all start to look hard hard to see if there is something they can do about it. Quite frankly, if Microsoft hadn't behaved like the very model of 'big-evil-corporation' they wouldn't have fueled so much resentment, and probably wouldn't now be facing rebellion.
.. because they can't get it. They don't have the capacity for it. Whatever this guy's resume says, it's clear as soon as he starts using inane terms like 'monetize', and when he pulls out the TCO argument that MS loves to flaunt but seems unable to justify independently, that he's just another blind marketing goon toeing the Microsoft line without any real understanding.
These people will never understand what's happening because they don't have any context for it. I mean - come on: citing the lack of a "lockdown, hardened firewall" as the area in which Microsoft is lacking when it comes to security merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of the extent of Microsoft's failings in this area. The assertion that a large peer-review process doesn't "guarantee a level of quality" supposes that those working on Linux are a group of monkeys -- although Taylor then goes on to basically contradict himself by saying "the end of the day, there are only about 14 to 25 guys that actually check code into the Linux kernel".
Microsoft will continue to try to marginalise Linux by suggesting that it's just "edge services" or "high-performance computing" (Windows is for "low performance" by implication, I guess!) - while pushing out the same hackneyed old nonsense about "hamburgers and bigmacs" and TCO. The only alternative to them, of course, is the true -- but rather circular -- argument, that Windows has supremacy because it's what most people use (and never mind the monopoly stuff). And it's here that Microsoft will eventually fall: once enough of the "key players" port to Linux in a variety of fields, we're going to see a critical mass as Linux becomes considered a "real platform" in the eyes of the masses. And Microsoft's tactics in trying to hold off that day simply don't seem to be working too well.
we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering
It has been mentioned at above, but this comment really is the crux of the problem for microsoft. People are beginning to realise that Macdonalds only offers a small range of choice and those choices all taste the same.
We dont want the same shit repackaged and remarketed - we want better stuff not cheaper stuff.
I find the fast food comment completely valid.
Software is food for your computer.
The supersize combo meal typically makes people fat and slow.
the people who are telling you to "trust us, we're better" have left lots of people high and dry before. With open source one doesn't require blind faith to operate - one can actually look at the code. If MS had been better at its job or fairer to its users before, their word might be good enough for most people like me who don't want to look at the source code - but they've been neither good nor fair, and so their word is by no means good enough.
When MS tells you to trust them, the first instinct (as with almost anyone, not just MS) should be not to turn your back.
Jokes at the McDonald's analogy aside, if you've looked at your local McDonald's lately, you might understand what this guy is saying about Microsoft's future strategy.
McDonald's used to sell just burgers, fries and Coke. Not anymore. Now we have a McCafe, and salads and chicken wraps. Why? Because they were missing out on a market segment and want to dominate that, too.
Remember, everything Microsoft does, it learnt first from IBM. And market segmentation is the name of the game here. Invent three boxes, small, medium and large, and claim that's more choice than Linux gives you.
Apart from the fact that such tactics won't work against an open-source model, isn't it a strategic mistake to chop op a major OS/Applications platform like this? Joe Average might be confused enough to think that Linux is a simpler alternative :)
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality.
.vbs (local or remote), which is to execute it. The VBS engine has free rein over the system, including being able to read addressbooks, open network sockets (most viruses now have primitive SMTP mailers) and do anything else they pretty much want.
So, higher Windows OS sales doesn't make it better than Linux?
Jokes aside, he says security concerns are because Windows doesn't ship with a firewall. Umm, it does, it's poorly documented, but it does. I'm not sure how a firewall would help against email viruses.
The scary thing is email viruses work because everything is working just the way it should (at least the way it was at some snapshot in time, a snapshot in time that many people are obviously still at). Outlook is hiding extensions, like it was told to. The people are opening attachments, like they should be able to (MS has taken the obvious action in some situations, made it dangerous, and then blamed the user for doing the obvious). The OS is doing what it is told to when opening ANY
Rant mode OFF
For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such.
You don't really do it for free. It takes your time to recompile your kernal if you don't want a swiss-army-knife operating system like Windows.
Not to nitpick, but there are a few points that need to be addressed here.
1)Every operating system requires time. Its just a matter of how much. Of course, MS says that W2k3S requires less, but I disagree. MS likes to talk all about TCO, but the fact is, in DOLLARS, windows is damn expensive and GNU/Linux is free.
2)The linux kernel by nature is always a "swiss-army-knife" kernel due to its modularity. Though the default install of my favorite distro (Debian) is very nicely trimmed, I can still compile modules against my kernel headers and load them (still during my linux session). Generally speaking, it takes about 15 seconds of my time to type "make && make install && modprobe xxx" in the module directory. If it takes you longer, feel free to copy my command (just remember to replace 'xxx' with your module name). By the way, the "swiss-army-knife" nature of the linux kernel (or the winNT kernel) is not problematic to security. Its the applications level integration that gets MS in trouble.
3)None of the operations the grandparent post described require any kind of kernel rebuild (unless you absolutely MUST have apache kernel hooks, and I really don't know how useful they are).
I understand your argument, but I disagree. The fact that linux is free (money wise) is and always will be a huge advantage
Don't buy into the MS Total-Cost-Ownership theory. The fact is, if you want to use that as a benchmark for software value, you have weigh more than just time and money; you also weigh the cost of supporting a monopolistic standard-defying unscroupulous company like Microsoft.
Mr. MsEmployee,
-Do you know what is FUD?
-Don't You think the first problem is HOW and not WHAT do You sell?
-Don't you think that the problem is the card attached to your super-size meal telling the user that he
a.) cannot ask, read, search, investigate on how the meal was produced, grown, etc.
b.) is not permitted to even try to figure out how it was made or what the ingredients are
c.) The company (>>company>product>supersize diet and viagra>the company>product>product>product in kosher, muslim, klingon or other versions , because the market is too small
y.) as we are a dinamically improving company we keep the right to stop producing any meals in the futures, and after that you'll never know what have you eaten (mercury, kreutzfeld-jakobs etc.). We do not publish any data regarding to this topic
oh sorry, this vs. an 'opencola'
feel free to continue.
Our value-add is really in the R&D in the technology.
A disconnect with customers happens when Microsoft confuses who should be the beneficiary of added value from R&D. Have the enormous sums spent annually on R&D resulted in superior performance in areas that are most important to customers: security, reliability, affordability, and flexibility? Or is it the case that R&D spending is concentrated on technologies to displace existing products and vendors from the marketplace (Internet Explorer vs. Netscape, .NET vs. Java, etc...) in favor of Microsoft, but without seriously addressing the needs of its customers?
Small-business customers only want one server, maybe two, and they might want a separate firewall. They don't want 10 servers all doing separate, desegregated workloads.
It's wrong from a security standpoint, a software standpoint and it's against the best interest of hardware vendors. The small business customer will only think they want to go this way if they remain totally ignorant. Notice that the weasle does not actually talk about what M$ software does for you, because he's outclassed in all catagories. Microsoft, but pushing such ignorant garbage, is going to make an enemy of everyone with a clue in the IT world.
From a security standpoint, it's good to not put your eggs in one basket. The typical "small business" with a "server" acting as an internet gateway is a security dissaster. Though free software is more robust and can deal with the internet much better, it's stupid network design. Distributing the load insures that you don't lose everything all at once.
Microsft's continued insistance on software and hardware asymetry is brain dead. Old office hardware is robust and more than powerful enough to handle the day to day demands of email, firewalling and web service. In the free world, all you have to do is add a few extra programs and you are set. While it is a good idea to spend money on a RAID server for file storage and sharing, there's no reason at all everyone's desktop machine should not perform similar file and work space sharing for collaborative prorjects. It spreads the workload so everything performs better.
The real killer is going to be from a hardware vendor perspective. We stand on the brink of networking deployment of a previously unimagined scale. It's so much easier to get things done with free software, that it's wide spread adoption will drive huge hardware sales. Micrsoft's legacy restrictions are holding those sales back and creating distrust in buyers. Hardware vendors are tired of seeing their excellent wares underutilized, trashed and undersold because of inadequate software. They are not going to take much more of it. There should be a computer on every desktop and it should do more than a gloified typewriter.
You are going to see more Computer Bob's reading free software for dummie books and they are going to do great things with it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Mr. MsEmployee,
-Do you know what is FUD?
-Don't You think the first problem is HOW and not WHAT do You sell?
-Don't you think that the problem is the card attached to your super-size meal telling the user that he
a.) cannot ask, read, search, investigate on how the meal was produced, grown, etc.
b.) is not permitted to even try to figure out how it was made or what the ingredients are
c.) The company (--company--) is permitted to follow the whole lifecycle of the --product-- and thus can investigate your stomach, can put cameras in your toilet
d.) your supersize comes with a free dildo just to make sure the sex shop at the next door closes and you'll surly buy all the viagra with the famous --supersize diet and viagra-- combo for --the company--?
e.) the shop does not take any responsibility of anything caused the --product-- (nausea, gonorrhea, death etc. may occour in 'some' cases)
f.) the shop tries to you sell a supersize combo as a 'service' thus asking for a daily amount even if you don't really want to go back to them
g.) any help, written or spoken costs $50 after you leave the counter
h.) it is not permitted to use a 'knife' to cut our --product--.
i.) you might use a knife-like but not knife stuff to cut our product but if and only if the knife and the product license is the dietcoke knife license. Pay $50 or pay $100 as you wish and you are permitted to banned to permit the use of any 'future work' knife product salad.
j.) the company does not guarantee to tell your doctor what the meal consists as this is a trade secret
and...
x.) you cannot buy the --product-- in kosher, muslim, klingon or other versions , because the market is too small
y.) as we are a dinamically improving company we keep the right to stop producing any meals in the futures, and after that you'll never know what have you eaten (mercury, kreutzfeld-jakobs etc.). We do not publish any data regarding to this topic
oh sorry, this vs. an 'opencola'
feel free to continue.
Does it seem to you that he thinks they can just be more flexible mix and matching their products and compete with Linux in the markets Linux is already winning? I only hope that all of Microsoft thinks this way.
I'm afraid your price estimates come $699 short ;)
oh, wait...
Compare the quantity of Windows machines to linux boxen . . . draw your own conclusion about quality.
--Tsiangkun
Q: Is windows too expensive?
A: No, we just need to make stripped down copies for people who won't pay full price
Q: Is Microsoft soul searching?
A: No, of course not. We're categorizing customers to figure out how to customize to their needs and extract as much money as they will pay.
Q: Are you going to make Windows do this automatically?
A: No, we're not that good.
Q: Where is linux successful today:
A: Firewalls, appliances, supercomputers, legacy unix migrations. But we're not worried because the ISVs are not big yet.
Q: Are you worried linux will get more traction?
A: Nope. It's all because we don't have a good firewall, and we're releasing one soon now.
Q: How do you respond to the notion that peer review leads to better code?
A: Very few people read the code, and most of them are idiots.
Q: Is desktop linux a threat?
A: Only in gov't and third world countries. We're working on customizing for them, slashing prices, changing license terms, or whatever other "challenges" are needed.
Q: Why should solution providers use Windows instead of Linux?
A: Microsoft doesn't give a damn about the serice and support business. So you can depend on Microsoft to throw you that bone, year after year. A linux distributor can't reap excessive profits from licensing terms, and they have crappy business models based on giving stuff away for free. In several years down the road they might decide to compete with you and stab you in the back. Microsoft would never do a thing like that its solution providers, honest!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I suggest that the parent post be moderated up as Informative.
I've been a programmer/sysadmin for more than 20 years now and 8 Windows systems is more than I can handle.
Sorry to be so blunt: you must be a moron. I work in an office with 62 windows desktops, as well as 8 windows servers and 10 unix (different variants) servers, + 2 powerbooks. We have (ready for it?) one sysadmin, and things are smooth for him.
Granted, 30 of the desktops are in use by programmers (and we don't require much administration) but the others are held by people with a... slightly lesser technical knowledge. It isn't as hard as you make it out.
Caveat: I am not a Microsoft or Linux (or any other) fanboy (maybe Nintendo), so save that bullshit for someone else.
Caveat 2: I have acted as a surrogate systems administrator for a small Windows network. I found it quite simple.
Completely true - as far as it goes for a skilled user. If you post to a mailing list or a bug tracking system with a detailed breakdown of your system hardware and software, what you were attempting to do, what happened instead, and all relevant logs and stack traces - you can expect an expediant resolution. I myself have posted dozens of bugs to various project databases (mostly KDE), and in almost every single case they were fixed in the very next version, and in some cases they were able to propose a temporary workaround.
Compare this to Aunt Tillie, who tries to run a program she installed but nothing happens. She doesn't know where to find the bug database so she posts to a linux-newbies mailing list saying "Help! When I run this program nothing happens!" Then she is promptly ignored for not providing any relevant details.
When commercial software makers refer to support, then mean the second scenario. They've got legions of customer service reps who wait for phone calls and read off a script, giving generic answers to the generic problems that most people have. In many cases the "solution" provided is to delete all the configuration files, reinstall the software, or reinstall the OS. No analysis, no long-term fix to the core problem; but Aunt Tillie's software works now, so she's thrilled.
This kind of support is beyond worthless for the technically minded. Hence we think of free software as having better support while Aunt Tillie thinks of it as having no support at all. On the flip side, we think of commercial software as having worthless support (some customer service monkey who reads off a script and ignores us when we assure them that, yes, our computer is plugged in and yes, the monitor is turned on) and Aunt Tillie is glad that at least she can talk to a "real human" on the phone.
That was good :)
Where's the +5 funny?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
did he completely gloss over the fact that even when you buy a box distro off the shelf you can install it on as many systems as you want with no licensing issues? Two things drive the business user's interest in Open Source. Price and Licensing. He "sort of" addressed pricing but totally ignored Licensing.
At least Branden has removed the caption from that photo. My point, though, is that some of them, particularly the busy ones who have lots of users with lots of problems, tend to be hurried, unresponsive, and downright rude.
You don't have to hack anything. There is a checkbox right in the advanced properties for those file types (in folder options) labeled "Always show file extensions".
By default it's off for the ones you mentioned. Yeah, it's dumb, but you're still wrong.
I wonder what he could be talking about there ? Conflict with a vendor ? Which vendor, and why would there be a conflict ?
It seems that the Microsoft guy doesn't actually answer any questions, just reframes the question put to him by the interviewer to pose more questions. The interviewer of course, doesn't notice or even mention that the questions have not been answered. Very nice piece of PR work.
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Give me the recipe, not the product. RMS has made a strong argument comparing source code and recipes.
That was funny. As the linked story slooowly loaded I thought to myself: "omg, we've /.'ed CNN!"
Then I realized it was crn.com not cnn.com doh.
Liberty.
Small Business Server was the first time that we really kind of architected from the ground up for the small-business environment.
er, yeah right.
-- Sig meltdown immine...
I didn't read it as a jab at all. When I read it, I thought he was criticizing his own product for not delivering what the customers wanted.
Its like when you go to the movies and order a medium popcorn and they say "for 50 cents more, you can upgrade to the large". But you don't WANT the large!
The medium popcorn (or diet coke) is all the customer wants. Linux can do both roles (the medium and the large) for the same price (free) -- or at varying prices if you buy a supported version from a vendor. He is admitting that you cannot easily buy the medium popcorn version of Windows - you are forced to pay for the large (full functionality), even when you don't need it.
This is obviously a concern at Microsoft, and something they are starting to address (consider the various versions of Windows Server 2003).
It was worth reading. I got some laughs out of it so it wasn't a complete waste :)
All balls, no brains, paid to be excited over the wrong kinds of things.
From Dog Food to Junk Food, M$ continues be as unpolitic as ever. Anyone can do a burger and fries better than McDonald's, there are all sorts of vendors ready to make it easier and cheaper. Only a 16 year old at a fast food joint thinks the "secret sauce" is special or makes the food taste any better. Anyone who tries to live off junk food will die bloated and stupid. I can't think of a worse analogy for him to have used.
Microsoft is in an untennable position, but lacks the brains to realize it. You can't make people who share their work for free look bad. You can't say that they work they produce is second rate and you can't say that Microsoft is worth the money anymore.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Plus if you look at the Linux USB project, most of the commits come from Vajtech Pavlik, who aggregates patches posted to the linux-usb-devel mailinglist. Just because someone doesn't have commit access doesn't mean they've not written code in the kernel.
$49.94 from staples.com
It's the full product; "One year security and maintenance updates via Red Hat Network"
AIUI, anyone could just pick up a bunch of these and each box is good for a year's worth of RHN.
You forget that Microsoft just bought Connectix and is about to release a server style virtual machine product. Doesn't matter a rat's ass security wise if your RDBMS, firewall, mail, DNS, IRC, pr0n are all on the same "physical" machine -- they're not on the same machine as far as each instance is concerned.
It would have been if they had left the web server a separate product. Aim to monopolize web server market ... but shoot's itself in the foot it seems.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
They are not better than oss solutions. In some cases, they are more *convenient*. For instance, take AD/Kerberos/DNS integration. A brilliant combination (provided it's configured properly), especially if you need to support multiple Kerberos realms with cross-authentication between them. Works with Unix/Linux/Java like a charm. Unfortunately for MS, the same can be done with open source software.
Other apps from MS are not nearly as good or impressive. Can't speak about MS SQL, but Exchange has a half-assed integration with AD and badly documented API, which makes it hard to work with if you're not using MS tools (sorry, weak spot). Nothing to be proud about.
Their time and resources would be better spent on making MS stuff interoperate with OSS/Unix/whatever s/w, instead of promoting "OSS is un-american" idea. But that's just wishful thinking on my side.
I think we're just found the real-life character that Dilbert's boss was based on.
He talks about the need for componentitzation. This will prove to be Microsoft's biggest challenge yet. This will require Microsoft to rearchitect all their existing code.
[B]CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows? TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in.[B] Isnt that funny? Do you think that question set off a little light inside Taylors head? "Maybe we should get a firewall appliance? Nah, lets let our customers be hacked by the superior linux users?!?!"
You have to love this shit.
CRN: Where do you see Linux being successful today?
TAYLOR: Definitely on the edge. You're just seeing edge services continue, such as firewall, appliances and those types of devices. Obviously, Unix migrations are happening. That's where, primarily, custom applications that people have written in-house are being moved over to Linux. But you're not seeing this huge ISV community created. Yes, some ISVs are being created, but not any massive ones. And the other place we see it is high-performance computing, scientific computing clusters that have lots and lots of servers.
Huge ISV's. Hmm... Wall Street. Amazon. Yahoo. Google. IBM.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
i found this at the bottom of the article
TalkBack
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.
The site www.crn.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on unknown. FAQ
Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Rackshack
He sounds just like al greenspan!
I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.
If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.
For example, in this recent post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.
More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.
More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, twitter wants to be RMS, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and more FUD. This guy is like the Monty Python SPAM skit, but with FUD and more FUD instead of canned meat. Amazed
"Here here..."
It's one thing to analyze and pick apart the conversation between Martin and Michael, and yet another to understand it's significance in history.
I think, and time will tell, that you just witnessed (in that CRN article) a blind man fumbling to reach the light switch in his own house. History will show a trend. As the world populace grows in it's understanding and usability of computers, it's reliance on companies for certain component services (aka, the OS) will lessen. Empowerment to use one's own tools, without dependence from a manufacturer, is not a recent phenomena. However, in Microsoft's case, it has always counted against it. The open source community is not the enemy of Microsoft, but rather, time itself.
So, "here here, Mr. Taylor!" I salute you. I can direct your fingers to the light switch, but somehow, I feel you're quite content in the dark.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
whatever the fuck it is that you're smoking, i'm sure i don't want any.
Here's an OS under which an application can not only nuke the OS, but also the machine itself. The BSOD may have gone away to a large degree under Windows XP, but the random reboots continue.
This is considered a feature. People have been complaining about the BSOD for about a decade, so MS removed it. Whenever the BSOD would have appeared, the machine just reboots. Most of the time you could not do anything to recover from the BSOD anyway, and this saves pushing the power switch.
It is too bad that MS is incapable of deciding which program is hogging resources. The BSOD usually listed the KERNEL, GDI, or EXPLORER as the offensive process.
- If the kernel is hung, you need to reboot.
- If the graphics are hung, you need to reboot since there is no X server that can be independently restarted.
- If Explorer hangs, it can usually be restarted without shutting down all other programs, but you lose the ability to monitor the other programs because they lost their hooks into the UI. It would be better if Explorer could tell other programs they need to restart any systray processes, or just maintain a list of what should be running in the systray, but that level of recovery is well beyond MS's designers.
- Instead of the BSOD or rebooting, MS could kill an offensive process and garbage collect the resources. Again, that would require knowing how to write an OS.
---
I was running Railroad Tycoon 3 and the machine suddenly rebooted.
I have not upgraded from RailroadTycoon2 yet.
The only program that BSODed my Win98SE PC more than WindowsExplorer was InternetExplorer. I've been using Mozilla for a few years, so now the only BSODs I see are when I do weird things like attempt to look at the files on the hard drive.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
As for the idiot who modded me down to "Untouchable," does anyone need any further proof?
Huh? Your baseless accusations get modded down, and that is supposed to prove that Windows contains stolen source code? Even by Slashdot standards that doesn't make sense.
It's like the old saying goes: never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained by people being able to tell you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Can someone tell me what I get when I click through 20 "blocks" of jibberish?
If I had to guess, It's a low-res Goatse or soemthing to that effect? Too lazy to actually put it together.
Microsoft Platform Strategist Speaks Truth about Linux.
Film at 11, Hell Hath Frozen Over. Corporate Sunbathers are pissed off, demand weather control.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
"As general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, Martin Taylor leads the software company's charge to contain and eventually eliminate open-source technology"
I find great answers for MS on the web, although windowsannoyances.org seems much better than microsoft.com. That is how I discovered that need to upgrade the virtual network driver if you want to use large hard drives (64GB for Win98, 130GB for Win2K.)
And Linux is difficult. I still have not found out why grub cannot read a partition after "hide", even though it can "unhide" it. It is so much fun to hide the drive that has grub.conf and boot to the grub prompt. But after "unhide" the partition, Windows decided that it should not show the Linux partition anyway.
[Disclaimer: I am attempting to be funny by contrasting something easy (adding a hard drive) to something rather advanced (using grub), along with examples that make no sense to me.]
---
As far as upgrading, I do not think I have ever had an RPM (usually from RedHat) install properly. But the ability to uncompress tars into their own directories makes it very easy to switch versions just by changing the startup scripts.
I have not been responsible for administrating enterprise production systems for some time, but it sounds like I need to test Debian to make knowledgable recommendations.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Windows is a twinky.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?"
-- absloutly halarious.
Ok, nevermind, I see now. It was not my intent to quote out of context; I genuinely believed that to be what he was referring to even after reading the thread several times. Upon rereading, I guess he's probably talking about his government conspiracy.
You can't really blame me for having trouble following his post, since the format of the thread was:
Sorry to jump the gun in thinking you were clueless; I'll eat my words to you. I still stand by my assertion that being modded down for being a troll doesn't prove any conspiracy theories, especially since he was almost certainly modded down for the actual body of the original post, not the sidenote. But then, perhaps I only think that because I didn't put on my tinfoil hat to protect me from the government mind-control rays.
A quick trip to Netcraft reveals little supprise.
And then I remembered a particular piece from the artical that goes:
Well, according to Mr. Taylor it may not have much bearing on OS's, but it sure looks like it makes one hell of a difference with web servers.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
MySt1k wrote: : Both
compared to McDonalds ? True
Ouch! This rampant use of ternary conditionals AND plain speech logic can crash a language parser! Time to reboot my brain!
"Wireless : LAN
Reading this gave me the sudden urge to play the best of windows entertainment pack... with wine.
One night on a whim I decided to install jabberd2 on my freebsd box. The port did not build (I foget the exact error). Included in the error message was the email address of the package maintainer who happened to be in russia. I cut and paste the error message to him. A short time later he replies to the email with a patch. I apply the patch and install the thing no problem. I let him know about the good outlook and that night when my system does a cvsup the fix is in the port.
Beat that MS.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
It's not goatscx, and not worth the effort. It doesnt decode correctly because of the semicolon [;] from the very first line of data. after removing it each row should be the same length. After that, you'll see the image correctly.
Customer: How much for an order of Windows?
... How many bugs do I get with that?
MS: (With a big smile.) $2.50
Customer: $2.50!?
MS: Uhhhhh...About 5 bugs.
Customer: Ahhh... (Counts change.) Well, I guess thats about 50 cents a bug?
MS: Uh yeah, about. But they are some doozys!
Customer: Ok, lemme get 1.
MS: Right on, (calls into the back) 1 order of Windows!
(Back): One order!
Customer: No no...1 bug.
MS: (Smile fadeing.) One bug?
Customer: (Rubs belly.) I sure need a server!
MS: (Calls to back again, smile is gone.) Make that 1 bug in the server.
(Back): One bug?!
MS: (To back.) One bug. (To customer.) What else?
Customer: Do you have any webservers?
MS: (With thinly veiled patience.) One dollar!
Customer: Awww, come on now look out for a brother. Linux costs less than that. Why don't you just let me get some http for 15 cents?
MS: (With anger.) My middle mangers cost more than 15 cents!
Customer: Allright, fuck the http, just give me the source for a dime!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
That was porn, because I distinctly heard some journalist sucking a Microsoft yobo's dick.
I mean, please! Was there anything new there? Was there some weird insight that we haven't seen before? Was there a change of heart by a MS drone? Of course not. Microsoft says it is better and Linux sucks.
What else is new?
I didn't know people still used M$ Windows.
While he doesn't say it outright, this response gives the impression that the "14 to 25 . . . guys might not be the most-qualified people to do code review"
While development goes on in other places as well, it is centered in the OSDL, paid for by small companies that no one in the business world would recognize (such as IBM, Intel, and HP, to name a few). Do you think their money is going to anyone but the most qualified.
Again, he didn't actually say it, but it's still a lie.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Is there a MS spokesman who can give as straight answer? I mean, he talks a lot but says very little. Does he know the words "Yes" or "No"?
Magazine: "Is Windows over priced and is Linux a threat?"
Taylor: "It is like a number 5 at McDonalds, you want it supersized and carrots are in season. If the bun has sesame seeds and they had coke and not pepsi do you get a sprite or just settle for the double decker taco with hot sauce"
After reading the article I was not sure if I wanted to move my windows machine over to Linux or go out and get fast food!
Remember always question someone who answers a question with a question.
I agree it's a misrepresentation, but I think it's an interesting misrepresentation for two reasons:
Of course, both of these things may just be the face Microsoft wants to show to the outside world. Inside, Microsoft may be sweating about Linux's open source, better security performance, better response to new security problems, better modularisation, better performance on low-power hardware. Inside, Microsoft may be studying strategies to combat projects like Debian, and, indeed, this studious 'no comment' policy may be part of such a strategy.
But I don't think it is.
Of course, in a big organisation like Microsoft, someone is studying why users really choose Open Source over closed. Of course, in a big organisation like Microsoft, someone is looking at Debian as a competitor. But the feeling I get is that the people at the top aren't. The feeling I get is that the people at the top have a very focussed mindset, wholly within the money economy. They're concentrating on 'strategizing' the marketplace, seeing money ('monetization') as the only value. They don't see that in software itself the money-based market is itself under threat from the gift economy, from an economy based on reputation and esteem instead of money. And of course from their point of view this may be pragmatic - Microsoft, as a commercial corporation, cannot compete in a 'non-monetarized' market. But if I'm right, they are blind to the main threat that's facing them.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
"GNU / Linux and OSS has us and our business model by the balls and we're crapping our pants over it. That's why I can't answer your questions with coherent sentences and have to do the chewbacka defense and mutter something about big macs and diet cokes.
While saying this I'll also admit that we don't have a firewall and that Linux is gaining serious ground in scientific computing, clustering and public service and hope that you won't notice that it's gainging with IBM, HP and Co. aswell and on top of that also gaining in every other f*cking direction you look.
And we only get it on in the 'I bought a new PC and it happend to come with XP' market.
So please be distracted and continue to give ur your money right now."
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Looks like its simply a market segmentation approach through increased componentisation that they are doomed to adopt.
In plain terms this means taking their one product and de-featuring or crippling it to suit what Microsoft thinks is best for a particular customer. They will always get this wrong for two reasons:
because everyone has unique demands on technology and
all GNU/Linux distributions are highly componentised from the very first day because thats how they are created using very different development teams.
A typical Linux distro is intrinsically componentised and so is years ahead of Microsoft. A typical full-fat GNU/Linux distribution will always be the whole product and will (nearly) always provide the right product offering to its customers without having to crow-bar your requirements to fit Microsoft's view of who you are.
Who do you want to be today ? - I just want to be me not what you tell me to be !
This is why Microsoft just can't win by using market segmentation against Linux. It may work if the competition was commercial e.g. Microsoft verses Apple, but Linux development is user-demand driven not marketing-demand driven.
No mention is made of GPL/LGPL in the article. In my books this is also a key customer requirement of derisking single-suppliers through open source licensing. Shared source is not the answer as you cannot build from that source whereas I can, and do, build from kernel.org (now at 2.6.3 and very happy with what I see on my SMP machine).
My 80 year old grandfather, on getting his first PC 4 years ago installed Linux first. (true story) He was brand new to computers in general as a user, so he backed out of the situation, and went to Windows, which he still has trouble using. He's fond of it, but with his strong anticorporate beliefs, he's just can't wait for Linux to be accessible to him without need for support. (he uses digital cameras, scanners, video cameras, and all sorts of gadgets, which arent Linux friendly nowdays).
There is a bigger market for Linux. I don't think the article shows that Microsoft isn't worried. They should be, and I see that they are responding. Anything that gets a 95% monopoly to do anything more than blink (and Linux did much more) must have some real value.
J
but my cholesterol is 147 w/o drugs. YMMV.
Right, but this is a loaded question:
Magazine: "Is Windows over priced and is Linux a threat?"
The two combined questions may have different answers, it's not fair to jam such radical questions together, if you do so, expect an indirect answer, as the interviewee clumsily attempts to split them up, then answer them individually.
The Linux platform is developed by programmers in every country of the world. The upstart Operating System is powered by a kernel which surpasses the kernel of Windows in all respects.
The only avenue left to us is to impress the clueless users with eye candy. Let's hire that guy who made that "script your desktop" thing.
--Receives a message from offstage--
Well, it seems that the "script your desktop" program is a Linux program, part of some K desktop thing. The floor is open... Any ideas?
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
And Microsoft's perceptions are clearer now. Microsoft looks at the big-name vendors and noone else. This means they are ignoring all the areas where a lot of R&D is getting done in Linux. Is he unaware that the NSA has been giving Linux security boosts? Does he not realize that there is more to the OSS world than the big five vendors? I don't know where he got his numbers for kernel developers, but the mere POSSIBILITY that another organization can pick up your code and help you improve it is the singular advantage that empowers the world to abandon and destroy the Microsoft Way. Software is now a social, humanitarian phenomenon.
I would argue that the biggest reason people trust Linux over Microsoft "products" is that OSS has nothing to hide. It is HONEST. Heck, that's why *I* use it. I don't want to be haunted with the nagging suspicion that my box is spying on me. *I* prefer to be the one in control of my machine.
That's the topic the article never touched on: what about the vast number of people who simply DO NOT TRUST Microsoft?
Microsoft has a massive cash reserve, so they can tread water for a long time. But eventually they will either change or Microsoft will die. Interviewees like this man simply do not understand the nature of the beast which is coming for them. Now would be a good time for a reporter to bring up the Halloween Documents, where Microsoft consistently acknowledges that the peer-review system of OSS turns out better software. They should be asked how their recent press releases and actions compare to the very underhanded strategy outlined in the early Halloween Docs.
THAT would be some actual journalism.
--
I love these kinds of quotes: "TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review. I'm not [making] a disparaging comment on the open-source community. I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality. Let's just say that. That said, it's something that we continue to look at to see at what level and how do we open it up and share. And at the end of the day, there are only about 14 to 25 guys that actually check code into the Linux kernel. Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality." Still doesn't get it. It's (at least in part) that the right people CAN get to the code that makes it good. True, just being out there for people to see isn't gonna do it. Good ideas have to be able to find their way in when the idea is ther. Being open means any time is a good time. Just showing your code is not enough (*cough* shared source *cough*) but letting stuff IN is important. That's what open source does: collect ideas. But, becuase it's not predictable when those ideas are gonna come in, corporate mindsets can't figure out how to use it. I'm kinda ranting, kinda laughing. And, yeah, I'm leaving out a lot, I know.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.
What he is implying is that they want to divide Windows so that Microsoft can have many less expensive products that must be bought alone (i.e. windows ftp server: $399, windows mail client: $399, windows html server: $399, windows office server: $399, etc...)
If I read this correctly, taylor is saying: "If they only need a mail server, we will sell them a mail server OS which will be significantly cheaper than the full version of Windows Server. However, if they need file server capability, the end user will have to purchase Windows File Server separately."
If Microsoft's customers want a diet coke, Microsoft will take it out of a happy meal, and sell it to them separately for $.99, but if at any time they decide that they want the rest of the happy meal, Microsoft will charge them for the full cost, $2.99, even though the end user already has a coke. Microsoft will make more money selling less, by dividing their products, which used to be viewed as one item, into many smaller items, charging the buyers a retail price for the small items and a larger price for the entire package, "because it is the deluxe version." They will have found a way to sell less for more, and call it customer service.
At the risk of responding to my own post, I just wanted to say thank you for the spirited discussion. Most of the reponses so far have (very politely) admonished me for missing the point. I respectfully submit that I did not miss the point, and remain unswayed in my earlier position.
Most of the posters failed to discern that I did not say that Linux was a black box, I suggested that it was the same as a black box to average computer users and even many developers.
One of the pitfalls of web-communities such as Slashdot, is that people of like mind band together to the exclusion of things outside. Given the Linux communities desire for broader acceptance in the general computer-using public, I hope to see this phenomenon subside a bit. Still the fact remains that programmers with the skill necessary to work on the core-components of an OS are a subset of the world-wide population of programmers in general, and no matter how many you might find on Slashdot, programmers of any kind are a tiny, tiny percentage of the world-wide computer-using populace.
Like any commerical enterprise, the maintainers of OSS projects have their own priorities in fixing bugs, adding features, or addressing documentation issues. This agenda, may or may not coincide with the priorities of users of the OS, application, driver, or whatever. As a result, a certain percentage of the average computer users using any application, OSS or not, will always be waiting for a fix, feature, or document.
It has often been written, even here on Slashdot, that simply GPL'ing your code does NOT result in droves of talented developers contributing to your project, and most projects are driven by a core group of very committed individuals. So, in closing I reiterate, that in a world where Linux and other OSS applications are becoming mainstream, the 'black box' argument holds no water, because to the average user, its all a black box. I continue to believe that those arguing for mainstream acceptance of OSS, should forget about invoking the 'black box' argument, because to the average computer user, it is meaningless.
"That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Here is what I keep hearing: Just because there are more people looking at the code does not mean that the code is better.
The problem is
Beware of people using rationalized arguments to come up with irrational conclusions that can not be supported.
BTW, I have a BlackBerry pager, and it does NOT run Windows CE. I feel very fortunate.
It's a face, but whose?
click here to see that you are right
You can defy gravity... for a short time
eg:
As an American, let me gently note that "exempli gratia" is properly abbreviated "e.g." as it is two words, albeit not English words.
If you'd like to put vinegar on your chips, that's just dandy, however.
Goodness! I'm in a surly mood tonight.
"Foreigners talk better than they spell" -- Mark Twain