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!
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?
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
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
$ 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.
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?
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
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.
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!
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).