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."

Comments

Change of Tone

[peripatetic_bum]

I read the fine article and I have to say. The interesting thing to note is the change in tone. This guy, while I dis-agree with what he says, is saying it in measured tone. No longer is MS just saying this stuff is lousy and we wont demean ourselves to play on the same level of linux, but that linux is now being looked at as a real competitier that customers understand is a real alternaitve and now MS is attacking linux in a mesured way the way they attack other competitors (other than stomping them with their monopoly)

Anyway, Iw ould like to hear waht you think of the tone of this article

Re:PR guys need a clue

[Tackhead]

> Hell, I could chmod my whatever.txt to +x and try it!! It will actually attempt to run that way! Not smart.

But at least your OS shows whatever.txt as whatever.txt. Not whatever.

In Windows, users can't (by default) see the difference between boobies.jpg.exe and boobies.jpg. The OS hides it from them.

Compounding this - no directory paths, because (in the words of a Mattel toy) "Directories are hard". So it's not always apparent whether you're about to run C:\SOMEWHERE_UNUSUAL\EXPLORER.EXE and C:\TWHERE_IT_BELONGS\EXPLORER.EXE

And last but not least -- even if you turn the directories on and file extensions on, the OS still hides some extensions. Just because you said "Show me the full name of the files and where they live", obviously didn't mean you wanted to see the full name of the files! If it's named BOOBIES.JPG.SHS, it shows up as BOOBIES.JPG no matter what you've done.

There's no deeply-buried GUI option to show .SHS, you have to hack the registry to show the "super hidden" file extensions like .SHB, .URL, .LNK, .PIF, .SCF, and .SHS.

The difference in security doesn't arise because Linux won't let you shoot yourself in the foot -- of course you can. It's that Windows UI designers repeatedly make conscious design decisions that result in the gun always pointing at even the feet of the knowledgeable user, with the user blindfolded, and with a voice screaming "PULL THE TRIGGER! PULL THE TRIGGER! SHOOT NOW!".

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[saberworks]

Have you ever used Microsoft's "support?" The Network Operations Center I worked in for a while had one problem that just wouldn't go away. I don't even remember what the problem was, but there were at least 6 guys working on it and nobody could figure out the problem. Microsofts solution: Reboot it every night when not very many people are using it. I can't believe they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for that. And they were YOUR dollars (if you're an american) because it was government work.

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[neurojab]

>It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.

I doubt MS would gain much by Open Sourcing Windows... for a few reasons:

1) OSS would put Windows on the same playing field as Linux and BSD. On the same playing field, Linux is just flat out superior to Windows in most respects.

2) It would be easy to make Windows API clones, given that there could be no more secret APIs. Microsoft would no longer have platform "lock in" to force things like Internet Explorer

3) The code is likely just plain bad. It may need a major rewrite before others in the community could start to contribute.

4) Making something OSS does not necessarily reduce your payroll. Someone has to do the development in OSS, and quite often those people are paid. Witness RedHat, VA, and IBM contributing to Linux.

I don't see MS open sourcing Windows until they're smaller in market share than Linux. Then they'll get desperate, but it will be too late.