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.
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.
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?
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? What?!? Are there home users out there that actually PAY for Office?!?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
...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
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
$ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | sort | uniq | wc
117 117 2636
Still.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
I'm afraid your price estimates come $699 short ;)
oh, wait...
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
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.
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.
Every descent OS comes with one - it's called sys admin.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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).