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)
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
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.
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
I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.
And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.
It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
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
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.
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
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
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
That depends on whether you're an academic or a businessman.
I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?
Nope, that's pretty much a textbook definition of an Operating System.
The only catch is it doesn't take into account the fact that program code and requirements will change over time.
Also, that's pretty much how it does work. APIs that programmers are supposed to use are documented. APIs that aren't documented shouldn't be used because there's every likelihood they'll change suddenly and without warning.
If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS.
In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Companies go bust. Programs are orphaned. Products become unsupported but remain in use. Developers simply make stupid errors.
In short, it's not always possible to fix the program - and the customers don't care whose fault that is, they just want the software their business relied on to Work Right Now.
I wonder how often "Win32 specs" change with each version of Windows?
There are changes made at least every major release. Sometimes more often.
For that matter, I wonder if the same is true of my beloved Linux?
If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.
But I suspect Win32 standards among others have changed not only to fix broken software but to thwart competition -- example: Samba. You can't tell me that bug fixes in Windows filesharing also happened to break Samba several times as it has. How often has that happened I must wonder.
If Samba relies on known bugs and those bugs are then fixed, then it will break. Similarly, if it relies on behaviour that is deprecated, it will break.
How often this happens deliberately - if ever - is something I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists. I only gamble when I'm going to win.
This Windows source code leak could prove to be QUITE embarassing to Microsoft after all.
Given the intensity with which it is probably being scrutinised, I'd imagine any "obvious" embarassments would have already surfaced by now.